1920-05-11

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Et. Hon. Sir -GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I move:
That the name of Mr. Rinfret be placed on the following Select Standing Committees of 
this House: Debates and Mines and Minerals; that the name of Mr. Stein be placed on Forests, Waterways and Water Powers and Private Bills; that the name of Mr. McDonald be placed on Mines and Minerals, Forests, Waterways and Water Powers and Agriculture, and that the name of Mr. McKenzie be substituted for that of Mr. Duff on the Public Accounts Committee.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 126 to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The Bankruptcy Act that was passed last session will come into force on the first of July next under a proclamation in that behalf which was issued, I think, in the month of January. It is now intended to amend the Act. I think there are about twenty amendments proposed. They are not very radical in their nature but it is thought that they will simplify the Act and make it more workable. I will take the opportunity when the Bill comes to its second reading or is in the committee stage to more fully explain the nature of these amendments.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



SENATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Jessie Elizabeth Hudgin.-Mr. Mowat.	_
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Caroline Ewing Gudewill.-Mr. Fripp. _
Bill No. 116, to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting the Western Assurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Charles Lindsay Keys.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 122, to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting the British American Assurance Company.-Mr. 

Bill No. 125, for the relief of Irene Martin Chapman.-Mr. Hoeken.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Mewburn, Bill No. 23 respecting the Hamilton, Provident and Loan Society, to increase the amount that it is authorized to receive by way of deposit, and to change its name to the Hamilton Provident and Loan Corporation, was withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:,
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) if the rumour is correct that we are to be disappointed in our expectation that the Budiget will come down to-morrow. If it is not coming down to-morrow, can he inform us when we may expect it?


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):: I do not know whether
my hon. friend is disappointed or not but circumstances have intervened which make it undesirable that the Budget Speech should be delivered to-morrow as was anticipated. One of the considerations in the matter is the pleasurable circumstance that the Prime Minister of the Dominion (Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden) is expected to take his place in the House to-morrow, and on account of his return just previous to the time that the Budget was to have been delivered it was not considered advisable to go on with the Budget without giving the Prime Minister an opportunity of looking over it. Secondly, we shall not sit on Thursday but shall sit on Friday. The Budget might have been delivered on Thursday if we had sat on that day, and it does not seem advisable to start the debate on Friday. The Budget will, however, be delivered on Monday next which must not be, for that week, considered as a dies non, as it very frequently is. It being Budget day I hope all the members will make it a point to be in their places.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: Monday is not usually Budget day. While I must not say that there has been no such case I have no recollection of a Budget ever having been delivered on Monday. It is usually considered desirable that the Budget should be delivered on a day when there is a pretty good attendance. Of course my right hon. friend will say that there should be a good attendance every day. Perhaps Monday is being chosen for some special reaspn that my right hon. friend has not given. He informs us that we are to have the pleasure of the presence of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and he immediately proceeds to say that is the reason why we should not have the Budget on Wednesday, implying that it will not be a pleasant thing and that he does not want to mix a pleasant and an unpleasant thing. I think my hon. friend might take into consideration the fact that Monday is not a Budget day, and it would be a wise thing to say Tuesday. If, however, the Government insists on Monday, we will have to agree to it.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I do not know upon what grounds my hon. friend says that Monday is not a Budget day.


Mr. BUREAU:: Custom.


George Green Foster: Monday has as many hours in it as any other day, and after the rest of Sunday it ought to be a good day for the Budget.


Jacques Bureau: The shock would be too great.


George Green Foster: It is the duty, and I think the pleasure, of members to be present on that day, but the main object is'this: We do not want to lose any more time in getting the Budget down and proceeding with the important business of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: No time would be lost if the Budget were brought down on Friday next.


Mr. BELAND:: The session might come to an end before it is delivered.


George Green Foster: I do not think so.



EXPLOSIVE WORKS AT BELOEIL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres):: I wish to call the attention of the House to a very important matter. In my constituency there is a placed called McMasterville-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Archambault: -where the Canadian Explosives Company have a very large plant.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: That is awful.


Joseph Archambault: The plant is situated on the river Richelieu, about a mile from the village of Beloeil, where, in addition to quite a considerable population, there are some very beautiful summer residences. Nowt Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. member will come to the point of his question.


Joseph Archambault: I will, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must ask the hon.
member to remember the nature of the questions which may be asked on the Orders of the Day.


Mr. ARCHAM BAU  LT@: In the last fifteen days four explosions occurred at that point which resulted in considerable damage to property and even loss of life. I have already drawn the attention of the Government to the danger which exists from the presence of this plant and the necessity that an inspection should be made. The answer I received was that the Government had no jurisdiction and could not name an inspector or make an inquiry. I wish to inform the Government that chapter 31 of 4 and 5 George V-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is making an argument upon the Orders of the Day and, under no circumstances, can he do that. If he desires to ask a question perhaps the matter is of sufficient importance to permit him to do so, but he should not, under the guise of a question, submit what is in effect an argument.


Joseph Archambault: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to make an argument but simply to point out to the Government that according to sections 15 and 17 of the Act referred to-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Older. I must ask the hon. member to submit his question.


Joseph Archambault: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Government will order an inquiry and name an inspector under the terms of sections 15 and 17 of this Act, because it is most important. Otherwise there may be a catastrophe impending.


George Green Foster: To-morrow I will give my hon. friend an answer. In the meantime if he would direct a note to me detailing briefly what the trouble is which he has been trying to expose this afternoon it will help in coming to a decision.


Joseph Archambault: I had the same answer from my right hon. friend two years ago.


George Green Foster: Two years is so long a period that I have forgotten.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The very circumstance,
that this matter originated two years ago" is sufficient evidence that the question =is one that ought not to be submitted on the Orders of the Day.



REPORTED MIGRATION OF MENNON-ITES FROM CANADA.

Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) a day or so ago made inquiry as to wThether or not the Government had any official information respecting the migration of a large number of Mennonites from Manitoba and Alberta to the United (States, and if so, if the Government- was taking any steps to induce the people to remain in Canada?
In reply I beg to state that the Government has no official information of any such movement. During the course of the past two or three years the press has on several occasions contained announcements of the possibility of the emigration from Canada of a large number of Mennonites because the (Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta,-under the administration of their 'School laws, were insisting that the children of these people should be required to acquire a proper and efficient common school education.
If the contemplated movement referred to iby the hon. gentleman is due to the fact that there are large numbers of Mennonites who will not observe the school laws of these provinces the Government considers that it would be most unwise to interfere in the matter in any way.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT, 1907. AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 57 to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was not aware frota the order of business given to the House last night that the third reading of this measure was to be moved this afternoon. However, I think it would be inadvisable to allow the Bill to pass its third reading without once again referring to features of the measure which seem to afford reasons why it should not pass in its present form. There has been a great deal of discussion on this Bill in committee and it is therefore unnecessary again to review in detail the different points that have already been mentioned. It will be sufficient to draw the attention of the House to significant features of these amendments.
The first amendment changes the method of making application for boards of conciliation and investigation. As I pointed out in committee the change in this regard

has not, so far as the Government has shown, been requested in any general way. The minister has intimated that members of the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress have asked for the change, but he has brought before the House no evidence in corroboration of his statement. He has not presented to the House any communications from the Trades and Labour Congress, and if he has them in his possession 1 would ask him to read them to the House before the Bill is passed. In the absence of any request for a change in the method of proceeding under the existing Act, I think it is obviously desirable that a method which has stood without criticism ior thirteen or more years should be permitted to stand, and that the effectiveness of the Act should not be jeopardized by an amendment of the kind suggested which can do no good and may lead to a great deal of harm.
Then another amendment changes the allowance to witnesses from what in the Act at the present time makes it accord with the allowance to witnesses in the courts of the different provinces and establishes instead a minimum of $4 a day. The effect of that amendment, as was pointed out in committee, will simply be to encourage large numbers of witnesses to be called before these boards, and will greatly increase the cost of administration. When this objection was pointed out to the minister, he made the somewhat popular reply that the Minister of Labour was anxious that workingmen should not be taken away from their work as witnesses and paid meagre witness fees. I might point out that many of these boards hold their proceedings after the day's work is over, and that the attendance of witnesses may be for only ten or fifteen minutes. If the law is not left as it is, it is certainly going vastly to increase the number of witnesses called and correspondingly increase the expenses of administration.
In considering the amount to be paid witnesses under the proposed amendment, we must also consider the effect of the previous amendment, which the Government has introduced, and which permits any two individuals connected with an industry to which the Act applies to go around with a memorial and upon securing signatures of a majority of the employees to become entitled to have a board of investigation granted. I believe that the two amendments taken together are going to have the effect of leading to a considerable
interference with many of these large industries which are among the most important to the country, and that they will prove prejudicial to capital and labour alike.
A further amendment gives to the Minister of Labour the power, before a strike or lockout has taken place, of his own initiative, and without request from any of the parties, to appoint a board of investigation under the Act. That, I believe, is going to work prejudicially to the Government, and to the parties whose interest it was intended to serve. The Act is intended as a means of investigating existing disputes, and provision is made whereby any of the parties interested may make application to the Government in a regular way for the appointment of a board. In the past that provision has worked very well. Interested parties have been able to get a board when it was needed. More than that, where a dispute in any case has assumed the proportions of a strike without a board having investigated its merits, the law, as amended two years ago, gives the right to the minister to step in at that stage and appoint a board on his own initiative. But here is an entirely new departure in the nature of interference by the Government of its own will with private business, and that I think is a principle which the House should not endorse.
These are the essential features of the outstanding amendments made by this Bill to the existing legislation. All of them are doubtful, some of them are thoroughly bad. Other amendments were asked for by labour and by the public for the protection of public interests, namely, that public services and industries in the nature of public utilities operated by municipalities or provincial governments should be brought under this law. The minister says that the Department of Justice has given some ruling in regard to the application of the Act to municipal enterprises, and in virtue of that ruling he does not propose to alter the measure one way or the other; he proposes to leave' these important matters in a condition of doubt. My view is that if instead of bringing in amendments altogether doubtful in their effect, the Minister of Labour had introduced amendments that are desired and have been requested for the protection of communities and of employees in these large public utilities, he would be rendering a service that would be worth while. There are these objections, it seems to me, to the amendments proposed to the Act, and, as already pointed

out, they cover pretty much all that the amendments pertain to.
Let me say that I think the discussion on these amendments has shown the necessity of having the Minister of Labour in this House. I wish to pass no reflection whatever on my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who has been piloting the Bill through the House. He has handled the measure with that skill which all are prepared to concede he possesses in very large measure. But I am sure he will be the first to admit that he has repeatedly felt the difficulty of appreciating the amendments which he was asking the House to accept. These industrial matters affect all classes, and if there is one place above another where a Minister of Labour should be it is in the House of Commons, where from day to day he can answer urgent questions on existing industrial situations.
It is a serious reflection upon the Government's appreciation of what is owing the public that as regards the two departments of government which have the most to do with questions of greatest concern to-day, namely, matters pertaining to labour and capital, and matters affecting returned soldiers, the ministers of those departments should be in the Senate where it is not possible for members of this House of Commons to ask them questions or to get the benefit of their views.
May I point out in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that the action of the Government in keeping the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in the Senate amounts really to a form of closure so far as concerns the securing of information on vital questions or the discussion of them. We are by the rules of Parliament precluded from making any reference to what has taken place in the Senate. When those amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act were introduced in the Senate the Minister of Labour made certain representations concerning them. I have read the debate in the Senate. May I say that my hon. friend who has been piloting t'he Bill through this House gave us, in regard to this particular matter of witnesses' fees reasons for adopting the amendment, entirely different from those given by the Minister of Labour in the Senate. There the proposal originally was that the minimum should be $2 a day. In the discussion yesterday my hon. friend who sits to my right (Mr. Lemieux), an ex-Minister of Labour and the member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) also an ex-Minister of Labour, and the immediate pre-

decessor of the present minister and myself-three of us who have had to do with the administration of this Act, were all united as to the folly of making the suggested change, and yet there was no opportunity for the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) to give his views to the House, and under the rules we were precluded from referring to the debate in the Senate.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: I want to ask the leader of the Opposition in view of what he has said, if, after all, he does not think it is desirable when a person or persons has or have a complaint to make that he or they should be in the position of an ordinary litigant, who upon issuing a writ is able to cite the defendant to appear before the court and have the whole case dealt with on its merits. In that way not only private interests but public interests are protected. Does the hon. gentleman not think that some such course as that should be taken?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to answer my hon. friend's question, but I am sorry to say that I do not quite see the point of it; I do not see that it has any bearing upon what I have just been, saying with regard to the importance of having the Minister of Labour in this House. I ishould be glad to have my hon. friend repeat his question if he cares to do so.


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. gentleman
has just said that he thinks it is unfair.


Mr. McMASTER:: What? Louder.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend (Mr. Burnham) is referring to remarks which I made some little time ago, whereas I have in mind what I have just been saying.


John Hampden Burnham: Two minutes ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps a
little later I can go over the ground again, if my hon. friend wishes it. In the meantime, perhaps he will permit me to finish any remarks on this point of having the Minister of Labour in the House of Commons.
It is very opportune, Mr. Speaker, that reference should be made to this matter on this particular measure, because there is no doubt that the House has been detained longer in dealing with this measure than it would have been had the Minister of Labour been here to explain the features of his own Bill. We had to have two or three adjournments in order to find

out what the minister really meant. Lest it might be said by my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that these adjournments were unnecessary, I should like to direct the attention of the House to the circumstance that I pointed out to the minister (Mr. Meighen) that one of the amendments which he brought in did away altogether with a very important amendment to this law which was passed in 1910. I asked him if he -were aware that that was the effect of his amendment, and he replied that he was not, and he adjourned the House to ask the Minister of Labour about it. Yesterday he came and frankly admitted that the amendment as brought in had that effect; that it was never intended as it dropped a very important amendment to the Act made in 1910 at the instance of the railway employees and railway companies. That, I think, is quite sufficient to show the unwisdom of having legislation promoted in this House by ministers who know nothing whatever in a detailed way about the legislation which they are promoting. But I come back to what is fundamental under the British system as respects a ministry and that is that it should be where at all times and on all occasions it can be questioned upon important matters of public concern. As I have said, the matters of greatest concern to the future prosperity and present contentment of our country, are those which relate to industry and to the well-being of returned soldiers.
The course of this legislation helps us to appreciate, I think, just why this session has lasted so long and why so little has been accomplished during the time we have been here. 'If any one looks over the legislation which the Government have introduced, he will find that almost the whole of it amounts to bringing into this *House Bills which have previously been brought in and passed, brought in again and amended, and then brought in once more for further amendment. I have not at the moment a list of the Bills which have been before the House; if I had I could show that with the exception of half a dozen measures, they are mostly in the nature simply either of a consolidation of former legislation or of a chopping up of existing laws into different Acts and the assignment of parts to one minister and parts to another, and the bringing in of little amendments, some of which may be necessary, but many of which, like the amendments' to which I have directed attention, are mischievous and bad. Now,
that is the reason why we have been taking up so much time during this session to so little account. There has been very little legislation of what one could call an original or constructive nature. The Government have brought forward practically nothing of that kind; if they think they have, I should like the minister to cite instances. Take the Grand Trunk Bill. At the last session that measure was introduced. We complained that it was being rushed through; that errors would creep in; that it would have to be amended on a subsequent occasion. This session the Government brings down a measure to correct errors in the' hasty legislation put through last session, and two or three days are occupied in the consideration of that measure. Take the Opium and Drug Bill. What was that measure but a measure that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Rowell) had amended a year or two ago and which he brought back this session for further amendments-amendments so extensive that the whole Bill had to he reprinted? I might mention other legislation, but the facts are familiar to every hon. member. I submit that instead of tinkering and tampering with existing legislation to no effect, the time of this Parliament should be taken up, at this time of all times in the country's history, with constructive legislation along lines that are in accordance with the country's needs.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must point out that
the minister, in moving the motion for the third reading, has exhausted his right to speak.


Arthur Meighen: Except in reply.
Mr. SPEAKER * There is no reply on the third reading


Jacques Bureau: Stung.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion for the third reading of the Bill?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (Minister of Health), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Canada Shipping Act, chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide:-
[Stage Direction]
1. That Part V of the said Act, relating to Sick and Distressed Mariners, be repealed, and in lieu thereof it be enacted,-
(a)	That the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may rent and equip and maintain premises for hospitals for the care and treatment of sick mariners, and may, with the consent of the person having the control and management of any hospital, designate such hospital to be, during his pleasure, a hospital for the care and treatment of sick mariners, and contract with such persons for the care and treatment of sick mariners, and may discontinue the use of any such hospital for the purposes aforesaid ; and that the minister may make regulations for the government of any such hospital, and prescribe the duties and powers of the medical and other officers and employees of such hospitals, and of the port physician and of all other officers required to perform any services in carrying out the provisions of this legislation or of any regulation made hereunder; and all hospitals devoted exclusively to the treatment of sick mariners shall be under the exclusive control and management of the minister; and that any shipwrecked, destitute or otherwise distressed seamen may, by authority from the minister, be temporarily boarded and lodged and taken care of at any marine or seamen's hospital devoted exclusively to the reception, care and treatment of sick mariners;
(b)	That there shall be levied and collected on every ship arriving in any port in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or British Columbia, hereinafter called " the provinces," a duty of two cents for every ton which such ship measures, registered tonnage, but in no case shall the duty payable by any ship be less than two dollars in any year; that such duty shall be payable on each ship three times during each calendar year by the master or person in command of such ship, or by some person on his behalf, to the collector or other chief customs officer at the port at which such ship is entered, at the time of making such entry, and such entry shall contain on its face the tonnage of such ship, and no entry shall be made and no clearance shall be granted unless such duty is paid ;
(c)	That no ship otherwise liable to pay the duty shall be exempt from the payment of the said duty by reason of her voyage being one not requiring entry or clearance at the custom house. If the ship does not require entry, the duty shall be paid immediately on her arrival
(d)	That no ship engaged in the coasting
tra£e of Canada and arriving at any port in any of the said provinces from any other port in the same province, or arriving at any port in the province of Quebec from any port in the province of Ontario, shall be subject to the payment of the duty; Provided that no ship arriving at any port in Canada from any place out of Canada, and afterwards continuing her voyage to another port in Canada, shall be exempt from the payment of the duty at the last mentioned port, unless she has paid it at the first mentioned or some other port on the same voyage;	b
(e)	That as regards fishing vessels, the duty shall not be payable on ships employed exclusively in fishing or arriving at a port in the provinces when on a fishing voyage, but the master or person in command of a ship registered in Canada used exclusively in fishing or to be employed on a fishing voyage, may, if

he so desires, pay the said duty of two cents for each registered ton before the said ship makes its first fishing voyage in any year, at the first port at which the ship receives any part of her outfit for the said voyage, and thereafter before each subsequent voyage during the year, but not exceeding three payments in all in any calendar year;
(f)	That every collector or other chief officer of the customs shall account for the sums received by him under these provisions in such manner as the minister may from time to time direct;
(g)	That sick mariners on ships paying duty shall be received and treated in any hospital for sick mariners as heretofore, and receive the care of a collector or other chief officer of customs where there is no marine hospital; but no sick mariner taken ill or injured outside of Canada, and arriving in any of the said provinces otherwise than in a ship to which he belongs, shall be entitled to the benefits conferred by these provisions, nor for a period longer than one year without written authority from the minister nor shall he be entitled to treatment or care thereunder when suffering from permanent insanity, and no sick mariners belonging to ships exempted from or not paying the duty levied under these provisions shall be entitled to the rights or benefits of sick mariners hereunder;
(h)	That all expenditures made under these provisions shall be paid out of such moneys as Parliament may appropriate for the purpose; and be accounted for, with attested vouchers, as the minister may direct; and an annual report thereof, with a statement of receipts and expenditures shall be laid before Parliament.
2. That section two hundred and seven of the said Act be repealed, and in lieu thereof it be enacted that the minister may whenever he deems it necessary pay out of any moneys applicable to the relief of distressed seamen and appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for that purpose, such sums as he deems requisite for the temporary relief in such manner as he deems advisable, of shipwrecked, destitute or otherwise distressed seamen not entitled to relief under any of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 ; and may also on the production of the bills of the disbursements with the proper vouchers and such other evidence as the minister requires, pay out of such moneys any reasonable expenses incurred by the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom or by any officers of His Majesty in any British possession other than Canada or in any foreign country, on account of subsistence or transport back to Canada of any seamen or apprentices who have been domiciled in Canada for twelve months and who have been found in distress either on account of shipwreck or otherwise in any place out of Canada; and persons serving in ships registered in Canada shall for this purpose be deemed to be domiciled in Canada while so serving.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister please explain how this changes the existing law as regards sick mariners?


Mr. ROWELL:: This does not change the existing law as regards provision for the care and treatment of sick mariners; it rather changes in some aspects the administration of the law, as I shall explain in a

moment, and it increases slightly the charges upon the vessels. Under the law as it stood up to the year 1908-09, the charge on vessels that came under the provisions of the Act was two cents per ton, in order to provide the money necessary for the care and treatment of sick mariners. In the year 1908-09, the charge was reduced to one and one-half cents per ton, and the amount thus realized was sufficient during the years between 1908 and the present year to provide ell moneys necessary for carrying on this branch of the Government service. But owing to the very substantial increase in the cost of hospital care, the revenue under the existing Act will not be sufficient to cover that cost. It is estimated, that the revenue this year will be approximately $75,000, and the expenditure this year will be something over $90,000. The change proposed by this resolution, viz.: to increase the charge fVom one and one-half cents to two cents per ton will it is estimated bring our revenue up to $90,000, or a little over which will be sufficient to provide the moneys necessary for the care and treatment of these sick mariners. The change in the amount of the fee is the most important change involved.
Then there is a change in administration. At the last session of Parliament, the administration of marine hospitals was transferred to the Department of Health. We had at one time ten marine hospitals; of these, four have been disposed of; two are not now in use; and at present only four are in operation. A change of policy has taken place in recent years in the administration of this branch of the service. In view of the limited number of patients to be treated at any given port, it has been found more economical to make arrangements with the local hospital authorities for their care and treatment on a certain per diem basis. The result has been that in a number of places the maintenance of these marine hospitals has been discontinued and satisfactory arrangements have been made with the local hospital authorities for the treatment of the patients. The bulk of the work, therefore, is now covered by arrangement with the local hospital authorities, and in dealing with the matter, it was the view of the two departments that it was more convenient, expeditious and satisfactory to administer the Government hospitals in association with the work which is carried on in hospitals with which the Government have agreements for treatment of patients. Therefore, it was decided that the whole work should be carried on under the Department of Health, and the necessary changes to make that administration effective are provided for in the proposed legislation. The result is a revision of the clauses of Part V of the Act, which simplifies the procedure for carrying on the work and puts under the Health Department, not only the management of the marine hospitals, but the care of the sailors who come into our ports and who are provided for in hospitals in Canada under agreement with the department at so much per diem.


Mr. STEVENS:: I think the minister should give careful consideration to this phase of the proposed change, namely, that we are increasing rather than decreasing, as it appears to me, the cost of administration. By subclause (a) the minister is given authority, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to rent and equip and maintain premises for hospitals for the care and treatment of sick mariners. While I do not object for a moment to any provision 'for giving proper care to sick mariners, I submit to the minister and the House that this is rather a wide provision. I think it would be exceedingly unwise to provide a method whereby at any chosen point hospitals could be opened up and maintained by the Government, when we know that in nearly every port affected by this legislation there already exists one or more properly equipped hospitals. I think the most effective and most economical way would be for the Government to make an arrangement .with the hospital authorities to take care of sick mariners at these hospitals. We should avoid as far as we can, increasing the cost of administration of this particular branch of the public service.
There is another point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. Subclause (b) provides that there shall be levied and collected on every ship arriving in any port in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, or British Columbia, a duty of 2 cents per ton. Why exempt Ontario? I am not offering this in any way as a criticism of Ontario, but the point I am making is that there must surely be occasions when there are sick mariners in Ontario, and if the country is to assume the responsibility of looking after sick mariners, I think the cost should be distributed as widely as possible. Why should vessels arriving at a port in Quebec, Nova Scotia or British Columbia be taxed, and ships arriving at ports on the Great Lakes in Ontario not taxed at all? 1 submit in support of that argument that there is in existence to-day

a very large unexpended sum from the fees which have been collected over many years. In other words, the cost of maintaining and caring for the sick mariners approximates less than one-half of the fees collected. I am not sure whether the fee is being increased by this measure.
I think this should be the course the Government should pursue. First of all, the 'fees should be reduced against shipping. I think that is of importance because after years of experience in caring for sick mariners we now have in hand a very large sum unexpended.
Another point I would bring to the attention of the minister is this. It is alleged -I am not sure whether the statement is accurate, and I would ask the minister to inform the House- that a large portion of the funds collected against shipping for the maintainence and care of sick marirers has been spent in other ways and for other purposes, purposes of relief and so forth, having no relation whatever to sick mariners. That is not fair. We must remember that this is a direct tax against shipping, and in so far as it is a tax against shipping, it is handicapping the shipping of this country.
Another important point is this: The sick mariners' dues imposed in Canada have in the past been seized upon by the American Government as a ground for imposing a retaliatory tax against Canadian shipping entering their ports. In British Columbia, for instance, and I presume the same thing applies to the Maritime Provinces as against the ports of Maine and other states, our ships going to Seattle are now taxed very much more heavily than we tax American ships. The Americans imposed that tax because we imposed a tax on American ships entering our ports under this provision for sick mariner's dues. In my opinion it would be better if, instead of imposing a tax against all shipping, thereby inviting these retaliatory taxes against our shipping, we provided that where seamen are taken from a ship ill, the shipowner or company should maintain and caTe for that seaman. I do. not think the shipping concerns of Canada are opposed to caring for sick mariners under Government control and direction, but to have a large fund created that is not used in anything like its entirety, and then under this legislation to increase the tax, is in my estimation bad policy for Canada, because this is a time above all others when we should encourage the development of Canadian shipping.

There is another point. Subclause (a) provides for the establishment of hospitals devoted exclusively to the treatment of sick mariners under the exclusive control and management of the minister. Supplementing what I said at the outset, I am afraid the minister will find, as the new Department of Health becomes established, that it is going to get far beyond anything that was anticipated 'by this House when it created that department. The care of sick mariners has been most admirably looked after by the Marine Department. The sick mariners have been well cared for in the past, as is proven by the fact that a large sum, amounting, I think, to several hundred thousand dollars for the 4 p.m. care of sick mariners remains unexpended. Now we cannot create new paraphernalia and new officials, and as this legislation suggests, possibly the establishment of Government hospitals in different parts of the country, without enormously increasing the expense. I assume that the minister has considered this but I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that in the brief time I have had to peruse the resolution it appears to me that we are establishing a very dangerous precedent which if extended and perpetuated will result in a tremendously increased cost to the country with no vital advantage to the sick mariner. After all it is merely the care of the sick mariner that we are interested in and not the establishment of an expensive institution in the country. I want the minister to understand that I am not approaching this question with the idea of embarrassing him at all but there is a very widespread feeling amongst the shipfping people that the cost to shipping should not be increased. One thing above all others that we should avoid is increasing taxes in any way unless we are going to get a very decided and advantageous return from the same. I bring these matters to the attention of the minister and I request not only an answer but if possible a careful reconsideration of his own views as expressed in the resolution.
.Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:	This is largely a
question of administration. The Marine Department have been collecting large sums of money from the ships of this country but they have not been using that money for the treatment of sick sailors. They have been placing the money in the consolidated revenue fund and using it for other purposes. I went through the blue book a few days ago and discovered that they have between $150,000 and $200,000 still to the good.

They have collected over $150,000 from the shipping interests of this country for the purpose of treating sick sailors but they have not spent the money and they have not treated the sick sailors in very many cases. They have not undertaken the responsibility of looking after the sailors. There are	places	along	the	coast	ofNova Scotia where the department have not made	the necessary	provision	forattending to sick sailors. I drew the attention of the minister to one very urgent case in my own constituency. I do not know whether it is wise to transfer the treatment of sailors from the Marine Department to the Health Department. It would seem	at first	blush	that	it was	theproper thing	to do.	If we	are	to have	an
efficient Health Department it should look after the health of the people in all respects, but at the same time I fear that the Health Department, being situated at Ottawa and knowing so little about our sailors a thousand miles away, the sailors .may not receive any better treatment than they have been receiving in the past. I agree with the policy of the Government, whenever it is possible to carry it out, thal sailors should be treated at existing hospitals. Wherever there is an efficient hospital in the place where the sick sailor happens to be, it is the proper policy to make arrangement with the hospital to treat that sick sailor but I think that the department must also take the responsibility at places where there are no hospitals and that is the main difficulty along the Eastern coast of Canada. There are places so far distant from hospitals that it is very difficult to deal with cases of this kind. Take, for example, the town of Canso, which is situated some ninety miles away from the hospital at Douisburg which is the nearest hospital that is sufficiently equipped to treat a sick man. The hospital at Louisburg is one of the .four hospitals that the Department has been maintaining. We have about five thousand miles of coast line on the Eastern coast of Canada and you can understand that with only four marine hospitals these must be distant from any points where sailors may become ill. The policy of sending sailors to existing hospitals where there is sufficient equipment is the proper one.
I would like to see something done which will enable the minister to use the money that has been collected from these ships to equip hospitals or to assist in equipping hospitals at points like Canso where no hospital exists. Canso is the headquarters of the fishing fleet of Eastern Canada. It is
the nearest point to the Banks and hundreds of vessels come in there every year and there are many cases of hardship arising from the fact that there is no place there in which to treat sick sailors. The French Government have provided a hospital ship to look after the fishermen who have their headquarters at St. Pierre and it frequently happens, I understand, that the Canadian sailors are treated in the hospital ship belonging to France and treated free. Not having taken the same interest in our sailors, we have not made any provision of that kind at sea, and we have also failed to make provision on shore for those who come in. The minister should go a little further than he proposes. He has collected a very large sum of money from the shipping industry for the purpose of defraying expenses connected with this service. I think that he should make provision that in places like Canso-and there must be other places of the same kind- where no hospital exists some capital expenditure should be provided to assist in building and equipping a hospital. I understand! from the citizens of Canso that they are willing to do their best to maintain an efficient hospital at that place and in addition to treating their own sick they iwill be pleased to treat the sailors who ought to be treated by the department. They are not able to do that under present conditions. They have no hospital and in order to procure the money to build and equip a hospital it will be necessary to give them some assistance. I would like to ask the minister if he would agree to some policy whereby capital assistance could be given, or a yearly amount could be provided for a sufficient number of years, to enable a small town like Canso to build and maintain an efficient hospital.


Mr. CURRIE:: I observe in the resolution that there is an exception made in the case of the province of Ontario. Am I right in believing that the province of Ontario is exempt from this resolution? I understand that the Government has been collecting fees for sick sailors for many years. In the province of Ontario we have as many sick sailors proportionately as there .are on the sea coast. If there is a sick sailor in Ontario he is taken off the ship and sent to a local hospital where he is attended to. The expense is not charged against the ship; it is charged against the municipality. In the largest town in my riding, Colling-wood, they have a marine and general hospital where they treat sailors who come from various places to that port. They are

sent to the port and treated in the hospital, and the municipality invariably has to pay all the charges as these sailors have very little money. In many instances they are suffering from contagious diseases, such as smallpox, and they are sent to the hospital and quarantined and some are treated for five or six months. In typhoid fever cases they are taken care of for two or three months. Whilst the Dominion Government assesses shipping and receives a large mount annually from that source for the purpose of attending sick sailors, not one dollar have I ever been able to get out of the Marine Department for a hospital. The minister might take notice of that. Not only is that the case in Collingwood but it is equally true in respect to Midland, Fort William, Port Arthur, Goderich, Kincardine, St. Catharines, Toronto and all those points on the Great Lakes. There are over four thousand sailors under ordinary circumstances on Canadian ships on the Great Lakes . who need this attention. Not only do we have to attend to the Canadian sailors hut a great deal of the traffic goes by American ships and we have to attend to the crews of those vessels as well. The American vessels come to our great lake ports with corn, iron ore, and other products. Many of them are allowed to engage in the coasting trade in Canada and they come to Fort William, Midland St. Catharines, Port Colborne, and other places with grain. Their sick men have to be attended to and why should Canadian municipalities have to meet the expense? That is something I -.annot understand and I would like to know from the minister when he makes his reply whether it is a .fait that this money tax has been collected from the shipowners on the Great Lakes in recent years and if so why it has non been paid over to these hospitals for the work they have done. -I think that in the case cf the hospital in Collingwood it will be found that there has been some seven or eight thousand dollars of charges against sailors who entered that hospital in the last four or five years. The money was handed over by the ships for the maintenance of these hospitals but the municipality has been unable to collect a cent of it and the reason assigned is that the municipalities are attending to the matter. For the reasons I have given I cannot understand what induced the minister to insert a clause in the Act exempting Ontario from the operation of this law. The Department of Marine for years has known that we have been making a claim for this 
money. The hon. member (Mr. Duff) shakes his head.


Mr. DUFF:: The shipowners in Ontario have not paid these dues before.


John Allister Currie: I would like to know why they have not been made to pay the dues the same as the ships in the other provinces?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: They claim the charges are too high.
Mr. CURRIE.: The charges are not too high for other purposes. A charge is made by the Federal Department, for example, for inspection. Shipowners have to pay a fee for inspection to the province as well and they even have to pay an inspection fee to some foreign association; they pay to that association $35 or $40 for certificates of that character. There is no reason in the world why the shipowners on the Great Lakes-and they are not all Canadians, some are Americans, because there are foreign vessels trading on the Great Lakes * -should not be charged the necessary fees to maintain hospitals for sick sailors. Those sailors are very subject, for instance, to typhoid fever. They are more subject to that disease than are the sailors on the ocean; and most of these cases in the Lake hospitals will be found to be typhoid fever cases. Up to a few years ago-I do not know whether there is any stringent rule against it now-these ships used to pump the water for drinking purposes on board from the slips at Toronto and various other ports which they entered, and by reason of the fact that sewage was discharged there instead of being carried a long distance out, that drinking water very often was contaminated. The same difficulty does not exist on ocean vessels because they either get pure water from the land before they start on their voyages, or else use salt water which has been condensed. As a result of these outbreaks of typhoid, the Department of Marine was compelled to order the installation of systems whereby the drinking water was disinfected before it was supplied to the sailors. The outbreaks of disease became so bad at _one time that about 15 or 20 per cent of sailors on board the ships were suffering from typhoid fever because of the conditions which I have mentioned. I have every sympathy with the shipowner, but I have more sympathy with the poor sailor who never gets much of a deal from anybody, even from the Government. He is asked to pass examinations but the Government does

not provide any education for him. Take the man who has to undergo an examination for the position of marine engineer. He is required to take a very high standing in mathematics and thermodynamics but no government in this country is giving men an education along such lines or conducting schools where these men might receive a training for their calling. It is like pulling hen's teeth to get a dollar out of the Government for assistance towards any of these purposes. Now this legislation gives the last blow-this is the blow that killed father. None of this money is to go to the province of Ontario but it is to be left to the farmers in the rural districts and the artisans in the towns to bear the expense of ministering to our Lake sailors whenever they fall sick. I hope the minister will see that the clause is amended so that the cities of Toronto, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Kingston, and others along the Great Lakes that have been maintaining hospitals for sick sailors and saying very little about it are properly compensated for the services they render. It should not be a case of charity at all to have to attend the sick sailors. The shipowners are very wealthy. Some of these shipping companies are paying as high as 80 per cent per annum since the beginning of the war. Talk about profiteering! Therefore to continue to exempt them from the payment of $35 or $40 per ship per year is to my mind a great mistake. I hope the minister will take that into consideration and will amend the clause so as to bring all the provinces under the same regulation and see that the sailors on the Great Lakes get just as good and fair a chance as the sailors on the ocean.


William Duff: I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) and I cordially agree with a great many of them. But the trouble of which he complains is due to the fact that the sailors on the Great Lakes are not looked after by the Department of Marine or the Department of Health, because there is no provision for that purpose.


John Allister Currie: Under what?


William Duff: There is no provision under the existing law.


John Allister Currie: American sailors who are taken sick are looked after by the United States.


William Duff: I am not discussing what the United States Government are doing, I am
referring to what we do in Canada. As I said a moment ago I am in perfect agreement with many of the hon. gentleman's remarks and am only trying to get this matter straightened out. If the hon. gentlemen will look at clause 384 of the Shipping Act he will see that it reads:
There shall be levied and collected on every ship arriving in any port in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or British Columbia, a duty of two cents for every ton which such ship measures, registered tonnage.
It will be seen that the province of Ontario is omitted from the operation of the Act. As far as I am concerned I will be quite satisfied to have the Act made applicable to that province. I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman says: There is no reason why sick sailors in the province of Ontario should not be treated in exactly the same manner as are the sailors on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and on the gulf of St. Lawrence. I feel quite confident that ship owners on the great lakes will not object to paying the small amount of dues which the Government asks in connection with the Sick Mariners Fund. Two cents per ton on a ship of 10,000 tons means $200. That has to be paid three times a year so that in the case of a vessel of that tonnage the ship owner would only have to pay $600 to ensure that sick sailors shall be properly looked after in the hospital. If the province of Ontario comes under this Act the department will arrange either that the local hospitals shall care for the sick sailors on the Great Lakes, or else will maintain hospitals of their own where the men can be treated.
Looking over this resolution and comparing it with the old Act, part V, chapter 113 of the Shipping Act, I really cannot see that there is very much difference between them except that the wording of the resolution is much longer than the part V referred to. If the Government finds it necessary to put the care of sick mariners under the Department of Health instead of under the Department of Marine, the wording of the Act will require to be changed and "Minister of Health" substituted for "Minister of Marine" in clause 5. Personally I am opposed to the care of sick sailors going under the Health Department; I am firmly convinced that it is purely a marine matter and should be left in the hands of the Marine Department. In the last fifty years the department has built up a good branch in connection with this work, and the officials appointed to look after the marine

hospitals are well qualified and capable men, and give satisfaction not only to the general public and the shipowners but to the sailors themselves. It seems to me therefore that to transfer the care of the marine hospitals to the Department of Health would be a mistake. The Department of Health will, in a few years, have sufficient work to do without bothering in any way with the sailors who come under this Act.
I also notice that in subsection (e) it is provided:
That as regards fishing vessels, the duty shall not be payable on ships employed exclusively in fishing or arriving at a port in the provinces when on a fishing voyage, but the master or person in command of a ship registered in Canada used exclusively in fishing or to be employed on a fishing voyage, may, if he so desires, pay the said duty of two cents for each registered ton before the said ship makes its first fishing voyage in any year, at the first port at which the ship receives any part of her outfit for the said voyage, and thereafter before each subsequent voyage during the year, but not exceeding three payments in all in any calendar year.
In my opinion this clause ought to be changed so that there would be no discrimination against fishing vessels as compared with coasting or foreign-going vessels. Of course under the clause the fees may be paid if the captain or owner so desires; but it seems to me better to have the fishing vessel treated in the same manner as the coasting or foreign-going vessel, and there is no reason why this should not be done. As I said a moment ago the owners of fishing vessels have paid these fees willingly because they realized the benefits which the Marine Department have -been able to give sick mariners. I suggest that the clause be changed so that fishing vessels be treated in exactly the same manner as other vessels.
I was very much interested in what the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said as to what is going on on the Nova Scotia coast. I do not wish to say anything about the county of Guysborough, but I do say there is pressing necessity for a marine hospital at the Port of Canso-not so much perhaps for the fishermen of Guysborough county as for the fishermen and sailors on the Atlantic coast. As the hon. member for Guysborough well said, Canso is the half-way house for fishing and coasting vessels going from the different parts of Nova Scotia to Newfoundland or the gulf of St. Lawrence. There is hardly a day in the shipping season when there are not from ten to twenty-five vessels either anchored in the Port of <Canso or passing up the strait of 
Canso, and those vesels sometimes have to land sick men at this port. It has been a great inconvenience to those sick men to have to be sent all the way to the Hospital at Halifax or to their homes. Some one has said that the Government has on hand $150,000 collected from ship-owners _ of this country which has been paid into this fund. It seems to me that Parliament should immediately take steps to erect a marine hospital at Canso -for the treatment of sick mariners. Therefore I would strongly urge on my -hon. friend who is in charge of this Bill (Mr. Rowell) that immediate steps he taken to that end. If there is one port in Canada where something should be done for sick mariners it is at the port of Canso.
The department should also arrange to have a hospital ship. If I may be allowed to refer to what I said some time ago on a resolution before the House. I then suggested that one of the things the Government should do to encourage our fishing industry was to have hospital ships stationed at different -ports on the Nova Scotia coast or on the Banks to look after sick mariners. It seems to me that the Government might very well arrange to have a hospital ship placed at the disposal of sick mariners on the Atlantic coast, and also, if necessary, on the Pacific coast, where there is also a great fishing industry.
Suggestions have been made to close the present hospitals and arrange with local hospitals to look after sick mariners. While there may be some advantages in such an arrangement, I am not very strongly in favour of it. In my opinion it will very greatly increase the expenditure of the department, and I feel that sick mariners require rather different treatment, perhaps, than other sick people. Usually they are landed from their ship, and they will very likely be-
Mr. CURRIE; What would the hon. member do in case of contagious disease? Supposing two or three men are taken off a ship suffering from plague or small-pox, should not the department have power to equip a place in which to take care of those men? Some one has to do that.


William Duff: Men suffering from a contagious disease are not taken off their ship.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am advised that His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency will attend at four-thirty to assent to Government Bills, and in order that we may receive the report from the Senate on some Bills

already sent it, I move that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
Sitting suspended for Royal assent to Bills.
A mesage was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
The Speaker informed the House that His IBonour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal assent to the following Bills:
Bills passed session 1920.
An Act to amend the Currency Act, 1910.
An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to transfer to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the powers heretofore vested in the Commissioner of I>ominion Police.
An Act to amend The Government Annuities Act, 1908.
An Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act.
An Act to amend The Ottawa Mint Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act for oarrying inito effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and Bulgaria.
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Certificates of Service).
An Act to incorporate Scottish Canadian Assurance Corporation.
An Act respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate The T. Eaton Life Assurance Company.
An Act to confirm an Agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the city of Ottawa.
An Act to amend The Dominion Lands.
An Act to amend The Technical Education Act.
An Act respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
An Act respecting The Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company.
An Act respecting Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Pacific Marine Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate Armour Life Assurance Company.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of George	Henry
Shemilt.
An Act for the relief of John Bertram Hall.
An Act for the relief of Nell Louise Dennis.
An Act for the relief of Harry Ernest Wright.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Henry	Delphe
Parizeau.
An Act for the relief of Gele Karafel.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of William	George
Uren.
An Act for the relief of Meryl Adams. .
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Herbert	Walter
Ecclestone.
An	Act	to incorporate	International Loan
Company.
An Act to amend The Trust Companies Act.
An Act to amend the Civil Service Insurance.
An Act to amend The Loan Companies Act. 1914.
An Act to confirm the Agreement dated the eighth day of March, 1920, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, except the four per cent guaranteed stock.
An Act for the relief of Ignace Perugini.
An Act for the relief of William Murray Gray.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Stewart Addison.
An Act for the relief of Fedorin Cope.
An Act for the relief of Albert Harvey McBride.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Alexander Scougall.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Ada Mabel Sanderson.An Act	for	the	relief	of	John Albert Green.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Emily Cruickshank.An	Act	for	the	relief of	Cyril Graham
Sinclair.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Richard	Ernest
Anderson.
An Act for the relief of Edith Gertrude Willis.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Edward Dowthwaite.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Thomas	Fenby
Gatenby.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Michael	Joseph
Courtney.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Patrick O'Neill.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Robert	Ernest
Beadie.
An Act to incorporate Canada Security Assurance Company.
An Act respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.
An Act respecting The (Canadian Mining Institute, and to change its name to "The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy."
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Steamboat Inspection).
An Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
An Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
An Act to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.'
An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1921.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in committee on a certain resolution-Mr. Rowell-respecting sick and distressed mariners, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Duff: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: All these clauses will
appear in the Bill and can be separately discussed and dealt with. .Quite apart from any discussion of a general principle, I suggest that we leave the details until we get into committee on the Bill.
Mr. ,DUFF: There is something in what my hon. friend says, but when members on this side make suggestions, the Government usually answer that they have to give them their most serious consideration. If I leave what I intend to say on this provision until we are in committee on the Bill, I may be given that answer, so that if the committee will bear with me for a moment, I shall bring the minister's attention to this matter so that he may consult his officials and propose a change in conformity with my views and the views of a number of ship owners in different parts of the country.
Under the present Act a vessel which is chartered to go to North ,Sydney or Sydney and load coal for St. Johns, Newfoundland, and then to proceed to Europe, the West Indies or South America, may not
[The Speaker.]
participate in the sick mariner's fund or the benefits of the marine hospital if a sailor on that ship gets sick, say, at North Sydney-that is to say, while the vessel is on a voyage from one port in Nova Scotia to another port in Nova Scotia. I respectfully suggest that a change be made in clause .(d) with a view to providing that when a vessel is not on what is known as a local voyage but is chartered to go to a foreign port and calls at a local port for cargo, that vessel may participate in the benefits provided by the Act.
There is another clause which, I think, should not be in the Bill to be founded on the resolution, that is, section 2 of the resolution. Clause 2 repeals section 207 of the present 'Shipping Act, which section deals entirely with payment of expenses in connection with shipwrecked or distressed mariners who may find themselves in foreign ports and has nothing to do with sick mariners. The minister no doubt knows that, under the present Shipping Act, owners of vessels have to pay the expenses of shipwrecked or distressed steamers. For instance, supposing a vessel is wrecked off' the Atlantic coast and the crew are taken to Portugal or Spain, immediately on their arrival at any port, the crew go to the British Consul who arranges to send them home. An account of all expenses incurred in sending them home is sent to the Marine Department at Ottawa, which collects the amount from the owners of the vessel that was wrecked, Therefore, this clause has nothing to do with sick mariners, and should not come under the Department of Health, but should be left as it was before under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I suggest to the minister that he take that clause into consideration, drop it from the resolution, and arrange that the matter be left in the hands of the Marine Department, where it has been for many years.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I do not wish to delay the passage of the resolution, but I think it my duty, at the present stage of the proceedings, to call the attention of the minister to the very strong protest which he has received from the Shipping Federation. This protest is headed "Sick Mariners' Dues." Reference was made to this protest this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and as I am one of the representatives of the city of Montreal, I think it is only due to the Shipping Federation that I should bring their protest to the attention of the House and to the country. This imposition



192D

[Stage Direction]
of a tax upon vessels for the
5 p.m. Sick Mariner's Fund has caused a retaliatory measure to be passed by-the United States, and it is very striking that whilst in Canada American vessels are taxed for that fund to the extent of only four and one-half cents per annum, our vessels, as a result of this tax, when they reach any of the United States ports, are taxed to the extent of 37 cents *per ton per annum. Therefore, it is, I believe, in the interest of all, if we wish to help our merchant marine and to develop our Canadian trade abroad, that consideration be given to the protest of the Shipping Federation against that taxation. The minister received on May 7 a memorandum from the manager and secretary of the Shipping Federation, Mr. Thomas Robb, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, 1 shall read just the principal paragraphs which deal with this question. Mr. Robb says:
I am directed on behalf of the members of the Shipping Federation of Canada (Incorporated) who represent 900,882 tons of shipping trading to the St. Lawrence to respectfully protest against the proposed amendment you intend making to the Canada Shipping Act under Part V thereof covering sick and distressed mariners, particularly in reference to increasing the duty from 1} cents to 2 cents per ton per voyage.
The Federation for years past have been striving to have this unjust tax removed which has proved a discrimination not only against the St. Lawrence route, tout also against the Trade and commerce of the Dominion, and as a result of these protests, the Government reduced the duty from 2 cents to 1} cents per ton. From your notice of motion, the Federation presume it is the Government's intention to increase this tax to 2 cents per ton, and I have the honour of submitting herewith the views of the Federation why this tax should not he further increased, but also why it should be abolished in its entirety:
1.	The tax now imposed is 1J cents per ton registered restricted to three voyages in one year. The accumulated surplus of the fund from figures taken from Government returns amounts to $294,996.08, while the surplus for the year 1917 amounted to $12,011.81.
2.	The tax is an unjust impost in itself and is ur known in other countries with the exception of Turkey and Peru, which in itself shows a sufficient reason for the Canadian Government abolishing the tax.
3.	The levying of this tax on the Province of Quebec, Maritime Provinces and British Columbia, is the cause of a retaliatory tonnage tax being imposed against tonnage hauling from these provinces by the United States. Moreover, sick mariners' dues are not levied in the Province of Ontario. Tonnage from that province goes free both in home ports and in the United States which is an unfair discrimination against the other provinces.
4.	Shipowners are liable for hospital or funeral expenses for seamen injured or killed in service, and for medical attendance, medi-
144}
cine and wages while incapacitated from duty by sickness during the voyage, and the Canadian Government is fully protected by sections 207 and 208 of the Merchants Shipping Act, which are to be found in the Statutes of Canada, 58 and 59 Victoria, volumes 1 and 2, pages 116 and 117, and being already provided for it is unfair and unjust that vessels trading to Canadian ports should be further taxed to supply funds for other purposes, and further, there is no just reason why one vessel should he taxed to support the sick of another.
The Federation understand that one of the difficulties the Government have had in dealing with this matter is in regard to sick seamen on transient vessels. This we respectfully point out to you can be easily overcome by you instructing the. collectors of Customs that when any seamen may require to be cared for in Canadian hospitals, the master of any transient vessel shall he required to give a bond for an amount to cover any expenses that may be incurred in connection with the sick seamen who may be left in hospital. This can be required of the captain or the owners' responsible representatives before clearance is granted to the vessel by the customs authorities, and if this was carried out it would entail little or no extra duty to the collectors of Customs.
5.	The moneys collected from this tax have not been applied for the purposes for which it was collected. A return made to Parliament in 1888 shows that since Confederation, the sum of $236,500 had1 been applied to other purposes, chiefly for the relief of the sick poor in the cities of Quebec, Kingston and St. Catharines.
6.	The Federation do not wish to avoid or saddle the Government in any way with the cost of providing for the sick mariner, but say that each vessel should be required to pay and look after her own sick in the same manner as is done in other countries, thus relieving the Dominion Government of any legal or moral responsibility to care for the sick seamen any more than for other Sick people.
The seventh paragraph deals with British Columbia, and as my hon. Ifriend (Mr. Stevens) has explained the situation as regards that province, I shall not quote this paragraph.
The members of the Shipping Federation of Canada, being the largest payers of these dues, trust that this just grievance of theirs will receive full and fair consideration, and that the minister will introduce an Act during the present session of Parliament abolishing this unfair tax, which will be another step in the direction of freeing the Canadian tonnage from the retaliatory tonnage dues in the United States.
Such is the protest of the Shipping Federation, one of the largest corporations in Canada, and one whose interests are welded to the general trade of this Dominion.
There are two or three essential facts which, in my humble judgment, should not be lost sight of by my hon. friend when we consider the Bill. It should strike the members of the committee, on general principles, that the law as it stands to-day concerning the sick mariners' fund, is an-

[Stage Direction]
tiquated, and requires to be radically changed. It is not fair, for instance, that these dues should be collected from the ships in one province and not from the ,ships in another province. I always understood my bon. friend the Minister of Health and hon. gentlemen opposite to be in favour of uniformity in the laws ,of this Dominion. Now, if there is one law which should foe uniform throughout this country, i't is this law concerning the dues collected for the sick mariners' fund. There should not be one mode of taxation in one province, and another in another.
A second consideration which strikes me as very important indeed, is the fact that we are all willing that in the years to come great efforts should be made to develop our trade abroad and to seek wider markets for our products. Now it seem*-to me, as Mr. Robb states in this correspondence, that if we are charging per cent per ton on foreign ships, while we are met by a retaliatory tax of 30 cents per ton per annum by our greatest trade rival, the United States, we are defeating the end we have in view, because this will tend to restrict rather than to expand our trade. It is a restriction of trade, and I call my hon. friend's attention to the seriousness of the matter. I have no special brief for the Shipping Federation, but as my hon. friend the Minister of Marine knows, its members are all working hard to develop the trade of this Dominion. I know nearly all the members of the federation, and I know they do not wish to be debarred from the privilege of paying taxes. Far from it; they pay their full share of the taxes of this country. They arc willing to help the Government in developing and expanding the trade of this Dominion, but they call the attention of the Government to the injustice of this particular tax, and it seems to me it is only wise on the part of the Government to do away with this antiquated legislation, and to establish a uniform system throughout all the provinces. It is not fair that ships in the Maritime Provinces, in the neighbouring province oif Quebec, and in British Columbia should be taxed, while ships in Ontario are exempt. It gives the ships from Ontario an unfair advantage over the ships from other provinces when they reach American ports. I hope, therefore, when we consider the Bill the minister will take into serious consideration the protests which he has received. I am very anxious to know what are his views on this question.
[Mr. Lemieux.l
Newton Wesley Rowell: As I have already intimated, when the Bill is in committee there will be the fullest possible opportunity of discussing its provisions in detail. I shall not this afternoon therefore take up the time of the committee with going into the matter in detail, but shall only briefly refer to some of the observations and suggestions made by the hon. members of the House.
Dealing with them in order, with reference to the point made by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) as to the position of Ontario under the Bill, the explanation is that this has been the law ever since Confederation. I think the reason why Ontario is exempt is the distinction drawn in our Shipping Act, and in the American Shipping Act, between ships sailing on purely inland water and ocean-going vessels. As the ships sailing purely on inland lakes are carrying on a traffic on the inland lakes alone, they are not brought within the provisions of this part of the Shipping Act. They are neither taxed, nor are the sick mariners on these ships on the inland lakes of Ontario entitled to be provided for out of the fund. Neither the shippers nor the mariners come within the scope of the Act, and they have not done so since Confederation. The Act in that respect is just the same as it has been ever since we have had a Shipping Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will
understand that I do not begrudge Ontario her good fortune in not being taxed. I am simply asking that the province of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces and British Columbia be put on a footing of equality with Ontario so far as this exemption is concerned. 1 want the system to be uniform throughout all the provinces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All I have been doing
is endeavouring to make clear to the House the reason why the provision is as it is. One further remark in reference to it. My hon. friend's suggestion that vessels going from Ontario to maritime ports or American ports on the sea coast will be exempt from these dues, is due to a misapprehension. That is not the case. It is only vessels plying on these inland waters, and not those that pass out of these inland wraters to the ports of Quebec or to ocean ports that are exempt. I am quite prepared to say that when the Bill comes into committee this matter may receive further consideration.
It may be that the change could not be made without some consequential amend-

ments to the general Shipping Act. It is a matter that would have to be very carefully considered in all its bearings before an important departure of that kind could be made. I recognize that mariners sailing upon the inland lakes are entitled to the fullest protection and I am anxious to eee that they get it. Then, in reference to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and also contained in the memorandum from the Shipping Federation that there is a large accumulated surplus to the credit of the "Sick Mariners' Fund," I beg now to say that there is no such surplus standing to the credit of this fund. The monies collected have been paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, they have been expended from year to year and the way the figures which my hon. friend has read, or any figures showing a surplus, is arrived at is by taking the actual disbursements in connection wkh the marine hospitals and the payments to other hospitals on the one hand and subtracting those from the receipts on the other. But I would like to point out to my hon. friend that that method of computation does not take into consideration at all the cost of administering this fund by the staff which has existed in the Marine Department and which has now bee ntransferred to the Department of Health. If the actual cost of administration was charged up against the fund, my information is that there would be no surplus whatever to its credit. The fact is that at the present time there is no fund and that in order to dift-eharge the obligations which accrue cn account of these sick mariners at the different hospitals where they are being treated it is necessary that we should have more money than we are now receiving. That is the reason for asking for the increased grant.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it not true that for
many years past the revenues of this fund have far exceeded the expenditure?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As I intimated to my
hon. friend, if you leave out all cost of administration-yes. The figure which has been used has not taken into consideration the cost of administration and I am not sure that it takes into consideration the money spent on capital account. My information is that if you charged against this so-called fund-there is no fund in fact existing-it is a name rather than a fact-the amounts that might properly be charged against it, there would be no surplus. There is no surplus to-day. This year
we will run behind some thousands of dollars by reason of the increased amounts we must pay the hospitals for the treatment of these patients and I am assured that the rates in the new schedule are simply equal to the cost of carrying on the work. My hon. friend suggested the possibility of increased expenses of administration. There is absolutely no change as far as that is concerned by way of additions to the staff. The staff which has been administering this branch of the service in the Department of Marine and Fisheries has been transferred to the Department of Health and this same staff is carrying on the work and there is no thought or intention of increasing it. As I have already intimated, the policy of the Government is not to construct new hospitals but rather to take advantage of existing hospitals and make a suitable arrangement for the treatment of patients. I am glad to say that the hospitals of the country have been reasonable and that we have been able to conne to a reasonable arrangement with them for the treatment of these sick mariners.
The provision in the Bill in reference to maintaining hospitals but carries forward in substance the provisions of the old law which permits us to carry on the hospitals which we own. The details of that can be explained when we go into Committee on the Bill. My hon. friend from North 6im-coe (Mr. Currie) referred to the situation in Ontario and the monies charged against the municipalities for the maintenance of these sick mariners. I shall be glad to inquire into that matter and ascertain what the position is. The situation in Ontario however differs in one respect from that with regard to seamen upon the high seas. I believe that these ships upon our inland lakes come under the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Act, that is a matter which I shall be glad to look into. I should think that they would come under the Workmen's Compensation Act.


John Allister Currie: No American ships come
in, they have men hurt and they do not come under the Workmen's Compensation Act.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. But our ships do, I understand, in British Columbia. However that is a matter that I will look into before the Bill goes into committee with a view to considering that aspect of it. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has suggested that fishing vessels be brought under the operation of the Act and required to make the payment and become entitled to the benefits the same as the

merchant vessels. As far as the department is concerned, if that is the view of the House, we have not the least objection to it. When, the matter goes into committee I shall be glad to know what the view of the House is in that respect.
In reference to the point raised by the hon. member 'for Vancouver and also referred to by the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) in connection with the memorandum from the Shipping Federation, that the result of our imposing this tax upon ships is that there is a retaliatory charge against our ships in American ports, may I say that the first I knew of that fact, if it be a fact, was when I read the memorandum from the Secretary of the Shipping Federation. It is my intention to look into that matter and see upon what foundation the statement rests. It does not appear to be reasonable to suppose that because we impose this very limited tonnage tax for the purpose of looking after sick mariners there should be a retaliatory charge of some thirty cents per ton. That is a matter that I shall carefully look into with a view to ascertaining what the situation is and it can be considered when the Bill goes into committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For the benefit of the minister I might point out that if a ship leaves Vancouver and goes to Seattle and a sailor falls sick in Seattle the ship has to pay the cost of the sailor's treatment in Seattle although it paid the sick mariner's dues in Vancouver. The ship can get no return from the department. I think there might be some provision to meet a case of that kind.


John Allister Currie: There should be a reciprocal arrangement in a matter of that kind.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid the matter which my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) has mentioned could not be dealt with by our legislation. 'If >some reciprocal arrangement could be established, the situation might be relieved in that way. We would be glad to give the matter consideration. In reference to the observations of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), I would suggest that the question of how any particular amount should be expended is more properly a question for the Estimates rather than in connection with this proposed legislation. My hon. 'friend has brought the question to my attention and I am having a report made on the local situation. When we go into committee on the Estimates, the matter may be further discussed. I shall ask that the committee

report the resolution and further discussion can take place upon the Estimates.


John Howard Sinclair: I desire to draw the attention otf the minister to the fact that there is no provision in this Bill for any capital expenditure. There is a provision here for treating sick sailors and even for renting buildings for hospitals; but what is needed in the case of Canso is some provision for capital expenditure for an hospital. I would therefore suggest that the expenditure by the Government be made conditional-I see no reason why that should not be done. So that the town of Canso, or any other town similarly circumstanced that will give a certain amount per year might then be entitled to receive something from this fund. I know pretty well that if you assist hospitals indiscriminately from the fund you will have no end of trouble, and I do not want to put the department in that position. I would suggest that where there is a small town at some distant point on the coast that will contribute an amount say $500 per year, out of its own taxes for the purpose of maintaining and establishing a marine hospital for the treatment of their own sailors that we should give a similar sum. I would like to see the minister amend the resolution so as to make provision for capital expenditure in that way at a place where no hospital at present [DOT]'exists.
In regard to the situation at Washington, and the possibility of a retaliatory tax, has the minister heard anything from our Trade Commission on the question of retaliation? That is a matter that would properly come within the province of the commission, and if its members were alive to their duties I would think the minister would have some report from them on the subject, because a realiatory tax of thirty cents per ton on our shipping would be a very heavy tax.
I would again ask the minister to consider whether he will not amend his resolution in such a way as to enable something to be done towards establishing a hospital in places where there is no hospital at present. For many years the custom has been for the captain of a ship to put his sick sailors ashore at Canso but unfortunately there is no one to take the responsibility of providing a place in which those men may be cared for. Sometimes they are treated in a dwelling house where there is no suitable accommodation, and men have lost their lives because in that particular place there was no proper treatment available for them. I think the department ought to find a solution for that problem and that my



IX, 1920

[Stage Direction]
solution is a reasonable one. Let the Government make a proposal to the town of Canso, or any other town in the same situation, and say: " We will give you for ten years a capital expenditure of so much per year, if you will levy the same amount upon yourselves so as to build and maintain a hospital which will permit of the treatment of your own sick and also any sailors that may require to be treated there."
Mr. WIGMORE:: What is the population of the town of Canso P


John Howard Sinclair: About 2,000.


John Allister Currie: If the resolution passes in its present form there is no possible way in which, when the Bill founded upon it comes before the House, the minister can give consideration to the facts which I brought to the attention of the committee this afternoon with reference to the province of Ontario. Because it could be pointed out when the Bill came forward for consideration that there is a distinct clause in the resolution declaring that no money is to be spent on the provinces of Ontario and Quebec for this purpose. I would therefore suggest that clause '(d) be struck out, and also that the word "Ontario" be inserted in clause (b) so as to make the Act apply in that province as well as the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. The old law on this subject passed many years ago with respect to this matter did not apply to the province of Ontario because there was no ships of any size that were owned or operated in that province. I believe that three or four wooden vessels of a comparatively small total tonnage would cover all the shipping in operation in that province in the time to which I refer; but to-day ships of tern and eleven thousand tons are built and big fleets of large vessels employing a great number of men are plying on the Great Lakes. If the resolution is not amended in committee now, it will not be legally possible to do anything in the way of granting relief for the province of Ontario. I would therefore suggest to the minister that the resolution be amended in the way I have suggested. Then if his information is such as to warrant him in bringing the province of Ontario under the provisions of the Act it will not be necessary to come back and introduce another resolution. I would make that suggestion to the minister and I hope the committee will sustain him if he agrees to make the change, because I am satisfied the intention of Parliament is
to help our sailors no matter in what province they may be employed.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend's objection is valid-that is that we could not .amend the Bill in the way suggested-the same objection would apply to the resolution. We cannot amend a resolution if that amendment adds to the burden of taxation, it would be necessary to have a supplementary resolution to which His Excellency has assented. I therefore suggest that the resolution should go through in its present form.
I am quite willing that this matter, which affects Ontario, should be further discusssed when the Bill is before the House, and if the conclusion is reached that it is proper to make the suggested change I will introduce Whatever supplemental resolution may be necessary to carry it into effect. However, we will have to consider that carefully.


John Allister Currie: The minister must know that a resolution of this kind when it goes into committee is subject to change and there is no harm in making such a change. Parliament is supreme on a matter of this kind and all that I am asking is that this particular clause (d) be dropped. If we were making any addition to it possibly there might be some force in the suggestion that the resolution involved greater expenditure than was contemplated, and that it had not received the authority of the Governor General. I do not, however, see why the suggestion could not be carried out under the rule. There is nothing wrong with my proposition, it is customary for the House to do as proposed, and it is one of the prerogatives of the House to be able to change money bills. With the consent of the Government the House can at any time advance or reduce any expenditure contemplated in a money bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that the point taken by the President of the Privy Council is well taken. There could be no objection to the insertion of the word "Ontario," but that would undoubtedly broaden the taxation power of this resolution which, as proposed does not contemplate levying any taxation on the shipping of Ontario. If, however, you insert the word "Ontario" as the hon. gentleman suggests, you will be levying a tax on the shipping of that province, and I am inclined to think that is beyond our poweT at the moment. Parliament can make the change in a more roundabout way, but I think the point taken by the President of the Privy Council-that if you insert the word "Ontario" in the resolution you are running up against a

well understood usage requiring a recommendation from the Crown-is quite correct.
Leaving that point, however, I want to commend, if I may, to the careful consideration of the Government-if not at this time at a more convenient moment, but at all events for inquiry-the suggestion of /ny hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) in respect to providing a hospital ship. I do not suggest that by any means as a substitute for the usual shore treatment of .sailors but as a supplement to it. I think there is such a service established- for British seamen in the North Sea; and in recent years we have seen the inauguration of a hospital ship along the Labrador coast toy Dr. Grenfell, of whose splendid services we have all heard with very great pleasure,-


John Allister Currie: That is a voluntary service. Mr.	FIELDING:-and	whose work
amongst the fishermen on the Labrador shore has been beyond all praise. It will cost a little money but our fishing business .is growing-the industry is bound to .develop to a much greater extent than it has reached at the present time-and if the minister will make inquiry into the .matter, that is all I urge at present. He .will find it quite expedient to provide a hospital ship which, could spend her time amongst our fishing fleet. At present when a man is taken ill on board a fishing vessel, that ship sacrifices time and money in making for port in order to land the sufferer for treatment. All these things cost money, and this is not the best moment to recommend the minister to expend larger sums, but- I think that in this respect the suggestion of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is a particularly good one, and I would ask the Government not to lose sight of it in the general consideration of ,this question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask the minister whether the statement made by the Shipping Federation is true or not, namely, that in some of the other ports named, the Sick Mariners' Fund has been utilized for the sick poor?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My information from the officers of the department is that that statement is not correct, but I shall have it looked into carefully.


John Howard Sinclair: The suggestion I would make to the hon. minister to cover the ease which I have been pressing on his attention would be to amend subsection (a) to make it read:

^ That the minister, -with the approval of the Governor in Council, may subsidize, build, rent and equip and maintain premises for hospitals for the care and treatment of sick mariners,-
and so on. That would enable the minister to expend the money collected from ships for the purpose of providing a hospital where no hospital exists at the moment, and to my mind that is one of the prime needs in connection with this matter.
I do not sympathize very much with the proposal of the Shipping Federation. I think a tax ought to be paid by shipowners for looking after sick mariners, and 1 think the large ships ought to bear the largest share of the tax because they can better afford to do so. One and one-half cents a ton is a mere bagatelle on the tonnage of even a large ship, -and it is so insignificant in the case of the smaller ships that it is hardly worth collecting. Why should not fishing vessels pay a tax; why should it be optional in their case? I think their owners should take the same responsibility with regard to their seamen as do the owners of other vessels, and I am quite sure that they are willing to bear their share. A fishing vessel of 100 tons-and that is the average size-would have to pay only $2 for one assessment, and if it paid that assessment three times a year the total sum represents very cheap insurance. A fishing vessel of that size has probably 15 to 18 sailors aboard, .and by the payment of that small premium of $6 the owners have the assurance that their men will be treated in the ports where they happen to fall sick, and altogether it is a very favourable arrangement. I think the minister would be well-advised if he so amended the Bill that fishing vessels would have to pay this duty. Then of course it would be necessary to make reasonable provision- for the sailors.
I wish to assist the minister if I can, in making this Bill a good Bill and in improving the service; therefore I would ask him to take these suggestions under favourable consideration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My present impression
is that the Bill which will be introduced following the adoption of this resolution is broad enough to cover the matter which my hon. friend has mentioned. But the whole scope of the clause can be considered when we get in committee on the Bill.


Mr. McKENZIE:: One matter was mentioned by the hon. member for North Sim-coe (Mr. Currie) which pertains to the Department of Health more particularly than anything else touched upon in connection

wil-h this resolution, and that is the quality-of the drinking water supplied to sailors. He has told us that epidemics of typhoid have occurred among our seamen when as many as 75 per cent were incapacitated, due entirely to drinking contaminated water. I would ask the minister to inquire into this matter and punish people for supplying such contaminated water.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We already have that
power under the Health Act passed last session, and that particular matter is now engaging the attention of the officers of the department. There is no doubt as to the importance of insuring a supply of pure water to our sailors.
Resolution reported.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (Minister of Health) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 127 to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Sick and Distressed Mariners) .
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 10 consideration in committee of Bill No. 12 (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When progress was last reported upon this Bill, all of the clauses and schedules had been read and considered. Paragraph (k) of clause 2, clauses 32, 37, 44, 45, 63, 101 and the amendments proposed to clauses 37, 44 and 101 * have been allowed to stand for 'further consideration. Clauses 19 and 76 which provide for the expenditure of money cannot be adopted until the House has concurred in the required resolution. The other clauses have been agreed to. We have now reached clause 32. Shall the clause carry?


Hugh Guthrie: I have been requested to let clause 32 stand. I am still considering some amendments to it which have not yet been put in definite shape. I therefore move that the clause stand and that the committee proceed to the consideration of clause 37.


William Stevens Fielding: Is clause 32 to be taken up later in the day?


Hugh Guthrie: If we have time.
* Motion agreed to.
On section 37-Proclamation by returning officer.


Georges Henri Boivin: When this clause was last before the committee it had been considerably amended; several amendments had been adopted, and one amendment moved by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) was under consideration. He had moved [DOT] to strike out in lines 26, 27 and 28 on page 26 of the Bill the following words: "In every electoral district in the province of Quebec and Manitoba and in the English language only in other electoral districts."
Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. LOGGIE:: In view of the situation
as presented when the matter was p.e-viously under discussion, it seems to me that it would be fair to provide that in electoral districts where a considerable proportion of the electors cannot read English the proclamation should be published both in English and the language which these people can read and understand.


Mr. PROULX:: I am glad to hear the
remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie). When this matter was last under consideration I suggested that the Chief Electoral Officer could instruct the returning officers in all districts where there is a considerable French population to have the proclamations and notices in those districts issued in both languages. I hope that the Acting Solicitor General has given consideration to this suggestion. In this respect the Chief Electoral Officer could be guided by this last decennial census.


Hugh Guthrie: Would my hon. friend
(Mr. Turgeon) explain the purpose of his proposed amendment? There would seem to he some mistake in the drafting of it.


Mr. TURGEON:: My intention in moving the amendment was to provide that the notices and proclamations issued under this Act may be printed in French and in English not only in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, but also in all the other provinces. When T made some remarks on this subject on a previous occasion I stated that the publication of these notices in French in districts where there was no French population would not be necessary. In British Columbia, where there is no group of French-speaking people that I know of, it would not be necessary to have these notices issued in the French language. The same applies to Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; in any parts of

these provinces where there are no Frencli people, the Fiench language need not be used. In New Brunswick we have districts which are largely peopled by French Canadians. In the northern part of the province there are five large counties the majority of the .people in which are French. According to the census of 1911, twenty-five per cent of the population of Northumberland county was made no of French-speaking people. The French population in that county is increasing more than the English population. In such districts as these I would require that both languages be employed. French people are sentimental; they appreciate anything that is done in their behalf, and nothing but good can result from a provision that these notices and proclamations may be printed in the French language. During the course of the discussion on this clause the member for Neepawa (Mr. Davis) expressed his approval of the request which I was making.
I hope, for the reasons which I have given, that the minister will be inclined to favour my amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: The effect of my hon.
friend's amendment will be to strike out the words:
In every electoral district in the provinces ot Quebec and Manitoba and in the English language only in the other electoral districts.
If these words were struck out the clause would then read:
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officer shall, by a proclamation in form T., issue under his hand in the English and French languages, and shall mail one copy at least to the various postmasters of the post offices within his electoral district.
That would mean, of course, that that system would prevail throughout all the electoral districts in Canada. (Now, if I understand aright the remarks of my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) he does not intend that his amendment shall have such a wide application. When this clause was before the House on a previous occasion I was very imuch impressed by arguments which were presented in favour of some relaxation, at all events in the law as respects the printing of proclamations in the French and English languages. But practically all the arguments that can be used in favour of the printing of proclamations in French are equally applicable to the question of other languages in other parts of Canada.
Mr. d'ANJOU:	No.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend says no. But I am informed that in the northwestern portions of Canada we have large territories where no French is spoken but where many other European languages are spoken.
I know that in the portion of Canada where I reside it would be a convenience to a large number of people if the proclamations were issued in Italian; very few people there would be accommodated if the proclamations were issued in French. Unfortunately, very few of the people in my constituency can either speak or read the French language. That is to be regretted, but it would be a convenience to a good many people if these proclamations were issued in Italian, and to a number if they were issued in German. Therefore, my hon. friend will see that we are opening up a pretty wide subject if we depart from the old established section which has been in the statute book for many years. The provision of our law for many years has been the provision which appears in the clause as drafted in the Bill, namely, that in the province of Quebec and in the province of Manitoba proclamations shall be issued in both languages. After having given this matter the very best consideration that I can bestow upon it, I think at the present time it would be unwise to extend the scope of this section. Personally, this is not a matter which appeals to me very strongly; I am in no way prejudiced against the extension of the proclamation in the French language, but I know other people are; I know there are people who look upon the matter as a matter of constitutional right. Consequently the law that has been efficient and satisfactory during the past thirty or forty years should not be interfered with unless for very grave reasons, unless some very serious injustice or inconvenience has resulted from it. If a case of that kind were made out, speaking for myself, I would not hesitate to make the change; but after considering the matter -for several days and discussing it pretty generally, I think the committee would do well to allow the clause to remain as it is. There is a legal right; there is, I believe, a constitutional authority for the language of the present clause. I do not say that we have not constitutional authority to extend it, but I know we raise serious constitutional questions when we attempt to extend it. I see no great points to be gained by interfering with the present clause, and a good deal of difficulty may arise if we make the attempt. For these reasons I prefer to

stand by the section under which we have had many years of experience and which has not, so far as I know, resulted in any great inconvenience. I therefore think the amendment, while in form it is objectionable in any case and does not carry out the intention of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), should be rejected by the committee.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 118 (from the Senate) for the relief of James Lewis Price.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill No. 119 (from the Senate) for the relief of Frederick Tristram Clark.-Mr. Burnham.

[Stage Direction]
The House again resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 12 (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering clause 37, to which Mr. Turgeon had moved an amendment to strike out the following words in lines 26, 27 and 28 of page 26 of the Bill, "in every electoral district in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and in the English language only in other electoral districts."


Onésiphore Turgeon: I took the floor before six, after the Acting Solicitor General had explained that it was impossible from his point of view to accept my amendment, with the intention of giving a further explanation as to my attitude in this matter. I admit that opinion may be divided as to the French language having equal rights with the English in Canada. I am not a lawyer-
Mr. /McMASTEtR: The father of a lawyer.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am the father of a lawyer, it is true. Though I am not a constitutional authority, I have my convictions on matters affecting the constitution. I was born into life, I might say, on the discussion of a constitutional point. I came into New Brunswick at the time of the school troubles and the assertion by a portion of the people of that province of what they believed to be their constitutional
rights. After the Privy Council had declared that New Brunswick had no constitutional right to separate schools, I was the first to call on my people in the northern part of the province not to press the agitation further, but to accept any amendment which might be granted by the Provincial Government, rather than cause the least trouble. My admiration for the constitution has not decreased since then. I admire the constitution, because I have suffered for it. I would be the last man in Canada to ask for an amendment to the constitution, believing that one amendment might weaken the whole structure. The British North America Act is a tree, carrying in its growth the elements of the bounteous soil, and the tree has grown as the country has grown in population and developed. The Act itself carries an acknowledgment of what I aim saying, because French w>as conceded in the province of Manitoba when at that time there was a certain French population as a result of *an exodus from the province of Quebec. There were no French at all, however, at that time in Saskatchewan and Alberta. In New Brunswick the increase of population since Confederation is due to the French who have remained at home cherishing the soil of their forefathers.
I am asking by this amendment that the French language be recognized in every Federal record, as has been so eloquently and clearly demonstrated by hon. members on this side of the House particularly my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) and my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) who have spoken on the amendment. The Acting Solicitor General says that if he accepted the amendment, he would have to accede also to requests for the same privileges in regard to other languages spoken in this country. Personally I would not object to any group of people in this country speaking neither English or French, being given the privilege of having these documents printed in their own language, in order that they might better be able to comprehend them and make themselves acquainted with the principles upon which they are to pronounce themselves. In a mixed country like Canada we should be ready to grant concessions to accommodate our peoples. We know that there are languages in this country which have not the rights which the French language has in Canada, and I leave it to the Government or the minister who is in charge of this Bill to introduce such an amendment if he so desires.

As I said before six o'clock, I want to be practical. I am not moving my amendment as a matter of pride or jealousy. I want these documents to be published only in districts where there is a group of French people to read and ponder over them. I do not see why any hon. member on the other side of the House should not accede to this amendment. I am glad to see the Acting Prime Minister in his seat. He was not present when I spoke on this question a few days ago, and again this afternoon. I believe that if there is one Canadian who has given authority to my understanding of the rights of the French language in Canada, and has contributed to the harmonious feeling which such recognition may create, more particularly under present conditions, it is my right hon. friend, the Acting Prime Minister. At the opening of the session he delivered a most eloquent speech in French, delivered it more eloquently than could I. He spoke like a master of the language. He has given ah example of admiration of the rights of the constitution, and his action tends effectively to create further harmony in the country. I believe that if I had not been prompted by the effect that speech of the right hon. gentleman created upon my mind I would not have brought in this amendment. The Confederation has grown in fifty years, it has developed, and its- privileges have been extended to every territory it covers. Therefore, I believe that the House will be prepared to accept my amendment. But, I want to be practical in this matter. 1 would be willing that my amendment, as worded, should be altered in a certain way to meet all practical needs while at the same time maintaining the principle upon which it is based. In that case I might suggest a change in the phraseology to the Acting Solicitor General instead of insisting upon the wording as. it is there. I do not withdraw my amendment, but I would be willing to change it so that it would read in this way:
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officer shall, by proclamation, in form L,, issued under his hand in the English and French languages, in [DOT] every electoral district in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and in such other electoral districts of other provinces as the Chief Electoral Officer will deem it advisable to so direct, and in the English language only in the other electoral districts, and mailed one copy of each to the various postmasters of the post offices within his electoral district.
And so on. I move my amendment with the explanation which I gave this afternoon. I believe that this House will have no
good ground to refuse to accept the amendment which, under the circumstances, can only bring about good in the future.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do I understand the hon. member to say that he withdraws his amendment and that he substitutes this amendment for it?


Onésiphore Turgeon: I do not intend to withdraw it yet, but I want to substitute these words. The effect will be that the proclamation will be issued in the French language in any district where the Electoral Officer himself considers that it would be warranted by the number of French people in that district. I do not say where these districts should be; I leave that to the judgment of the electoral officer.


Mr. LEGER:: Mr. Chairman, I felt very sorry when I heard the hon. the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie)foefore dinner state that it would be impossible for him to consent to this amendment to the Act. The reasons which he advanced were not acceptable to me and in reply to the hon. gentleman I will give a few reasons why this amendment should be accepted. The law has been such that during the last thirty or forty years there has been only two provinces in which regulations and proclamations have of necessity been printed in the English and French languages. The Fathers of Confederation agreed that- both the English and French languages should be official languages in this country. The use of either. language has been the right of any member ini the House of Commons since Confederation. In the Senate Chamber to-day we witnessed the ceremony of assenting to Bills which had been passed by this House, and before the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General these Bills were assented to in both the French and English languages. The minister said that he could not see his way clear to the acceptance of this amendment, that it would open the door to lots of trouble, but I would say to him that I can foresee no trouble that would foe caused by the use of these two official languages in carrying on elections in this country. I am not speaking about any other language; I am only speaking about the two official languages. Therefore, I cannot agree with him when he says that the adoption of this proposition will open the door to trouble in the future. Another argument that has been advanced is that this has never been done 'before. If it has never been done before it is no reason why it should not be done now. We are making a new Act and we are only asking for what is within our rights.

We are not asking for any favours, only our rights, and therefore I cannot see why the minister should not accept the amendment and allow the minority the right which was granted to them by the Fathers of Confederation. The fact is that the recognition of these two official languages was one of the foundation stones of Confederation. There must be some reason with which we have not been acquainted that prevents the acceptance of this proposition. We have no claim from any other nationality to have these proclamations published in their language. We have only two official languages and it is only these languages that are referred to in this amendment. I ask that the Maritime Provinces be placed on the same footing as any other province in Canada, that recognition be given to their rights, and in doing that I feel that I am only asking something which they should receive at the hands of this Government.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the hon. member
trying-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the hon. gentleman claiming that the law should be changed?


Mr. VIEN:: We are making the law now.


Auguste Théophile Léger: We are not asking that the law be changed at all; we are only asking that the law enacted at the time of Confederation be continued. The question may be asked: "Why did you not ask this before?" Well, there are many things as to which the same question might be asked. The country is growing and the French population is growing in numbers also- the French population throughout the Maritime Provinces has been considerably augmented. There is nothing wrong about the request we are making; it is simply that the election proclamation and the various election documents be printed in French. I do not consider that we are making any extraordinary request in asking for that and I shall be pleased at any time to meet my constituents and justify the stand I am taking to-night. I believe they will endorse that stand because I know them and they know me. The majority in my province are generous and I am asking the majority in this House to be equally so. When the English people in my county ask for anything that is reasonable the French people cheerfully grant it. I am now making a reasonable request to hon. members who form the majority in this House and who represent the majority in
the country at large. The request that I make is that the two official languages shall be on the same footing as they are in our schools and in other institutions in that part of the country from which I come. I ask the supporters of the Government to join with us in seeing that our application is acceded to. Why not permit the French people in my province to more accurately grasp what is going on at election time when they could do that better through the medium of their own language? The franchise has been granted to women, but some of the women of my nationality in New Brunswick have not had the advantage of an English education and unless these documents are printed in French they will be handicapped to a certain extent in following the course of the elections. Let the Government grant this right and they will receive every credit from the people who will benefit by it. I again appeal to the Government to give us that justice and fair play to which we are entitled.


Hugh Guthrie: If I understood my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) aright he asked that the French language be used throughout certain electoral districts in Canada to the extent of printing the proclamation and election papers in French rather as a privilege than as a right; but I gather from what the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Leger) has said that he made the claim as a right-


Thomas Vien: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: -as a right given to the people at Confederation under the British North America Act. I am not going to labour the point, but I think it just as well to have a clear statement of the law as far as * I know it, because there are provisions in the Act which will clear up any misunderstanding which may exist. The only clause in the British North America Act, to my knowledge, that bears upon the question is section 133 which reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec,_
I think the committee will agree with me that that clause does not refer to these election documents or proclamations. The next clause is:
and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses;
Now I sbumit that the election proclamations are neither "records" nor "journals"

"of these Houses". The third clause is worded thus:
-and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this Act and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
That is the third clause and I think it is clear beyond doubt that it could have no application to the question under discussion. The next and last clause is:
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
I think. Mr. Chairman, it is equally clear that the last clause has no application whatever to the subject under discussion, viz: The right that was granted to the people of the country under the British North America Act; and I merely point out to my hon. friend from Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger) that in my humble opinion that does not include the election documents as set out in clause 37 of the Bill under discussion. There is another enactment, relating to the province of Manitoba, which I had better put on Hansard at the same time. That is to be found in the Manitoba Act, passed in the year 1870' when Manitoba entered Confederation. Paragraph 23 of that Act provides as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the Debates of the Houses of the Legislature, and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses.
That is the first clause of the section of the Manitoba Act bearing upon the question.
That paragraph can have no application to the section under discussion.
The next paragraph is:
And either of those languages may be used by any person, or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under the British North America Act, 186", or in or from all or any of the courts of the province.
The second paragraph, you will see, Mr. Chairman, can have no application to the subject under discussion.
The last paragraph of the section is:
The Acts of the Legislature shall be printed and published in both of these languages.
Now, I submit that under a strict reading of the'Manitoba Act it is very doubtful if there is any obligation upon this Parliament to print in the French language in the Province of Manitoba any documents relating to elections. That, however, has

been established through long years of practice, and the Government has no intention of departing from what we look upon as an established practice-Whether established strictly in accordance with law or for what other reason I cannot say at this time. I am pointing this out for the purpose of showing my hon. friend from Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger) that so far as I am aware the request that he makes is not founded in right; it must be viewed as a matter of privilege. He is quite within his right in asking for it, and I am quite sure that this Parliament has full power and authority to grant it if it sees fit. But in the present Bill we do not go as far as that, we are merely leaving the law and practice where it has been for many years, and I have yet to hear that it has caused any great degree of inconvenience in any part of the country.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask my hon. friend a question before he proceeds further? What kind of a document in his opinion is the Canada Gazette? Is it a "Journal" of the House; is it a "record" of the House; is it an Act of Parliament? Still, it is published in tooth languages all over the Dominion.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that when we
come down to examine that question strictly, it may be found that the Canada Gazette is published in both languages as a matter of convenience. It is nearer an approach to a record of the House or to a statute, because it does contain all our Orders in Council, which have the same force and effect as statutes of this Parliament. In a word, in my humble opinion, it is a nearer approach to the records of the House than any election document.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In what way may I ask?


Hugh Guthrie: Simply because it is a record of the legislative enactments of this House, whether carried out by statute or by Order in Council. It is a resume of the powers this Parliament has exercised, whether sitting as Parliament or whether sitting as the executive authority, as the Governor in Council. Therefore I say it more nearly approaches the language of the British North America Act than any election document could. I think that perhaps on a strict examination of the section it might fairly be held that the Canada Gazette need not be published in the French language. I would not advocate such a thing; I would advocate its continued publication in both languages. But when one interprets a statute one is bound to interpret it strictly, and I doubt very much

whether on a strict interpretation the Canada Gazette would he held to he a record or "journal" of this House, although it very nearly approaches it.


Mr. LEGEK:: The British North America Act as explained by the minister does not inention a word in reference to the proclamation for elections being printed in tooth languages either in Manitoba or in the Province of Quebec?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Now, is not the law of
this House the law which was established after Confederation, and which law was made to meet the requirements of that day? The official languages were established by the British North America Act, and then this House has gone so far as to say: We are going to allow proclamations for elections in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba to be printed in the two languages. If such be the case, and the two official languages were established by the Confederation Act, we are only asking now for an extension of the Act wherever it is needed, whether in the province of New Brunswick, of Nova Beotia, of Prince Edward Island or df Ontario. I never contended that the British North America Act went so far as to say that these proclamations should be printed in French and in English in Quebec and Manitoba; that is not what I meant. But I believe I am right in my contention that the law in regard to the use of the two official languages as laid down in the British North America Act may be extended when it is deemed desirable to do so. I would like to have an explanation from the hon. minister as to that.


Hugh Guthrie: It may be that I misunderstood my hon. friend from Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger) because I certainly heard him repeat on two or three occasions that the use of the French language as described by him was a matter of right established by the Constitution at the time of Confederation, and my only object in rising was to point out to him the exact terms of the section.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does the Bill provide for the text of the proclamation to be issued?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It does. This Bill could not be read a second time before it was printed in both languages?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the fact.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then why should not
the proclamation be published all over
Canada in both languages, if it is part of a Bill adopted by this House?


Hugh Guthrie: A Bill is published in both languages in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution and as an act of this House, and this Bill will be published in both languages. There our duty ceases. There is no requirement outside the province of Quebec that election documents shall be printed in French. Now, I may not know all the legislation dealing with this subject, and I want to guard myself to this extent, that there may be some other Act of which I am not aware with regard to the printing in French of the Canada Gazette or some other document. I am referring only to the law that was passed at the time of Confederation, because that was the point raised by my hon. friend from Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger). I am not expressing my own opinion as to the propriety of using the French language more freely than we have used it in the past. What I say is, that, viewing the matter from all points, having regard to the records of the past, and having regard also to the fact that no great inconvenience has ever been suffered, I think our safest, wisest and fairest course is to adopt the clause as printed in the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: I do not share the views of my friend from Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger) and I take issue with the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie). I claim that the word " records" used in section 133 includes everything that is kept in the custody of any official of this House. I go further and say that when T ask for a return in this House, that return is a "record " of the House, and if I wanted to insist on the strict interpretation of clause 133 I would have a right to see that that record was deposited on the table of the House in both languages. Section 133 does not say " may," it says " shallit is not permissive, it is imperative.
Now, Sir, what is a " record?" A record, according to Murray's New English Dictionary, is:
The fact or attribute of being so; having been committed by writing as authentic evidence of a matter having a legal importance;-
Now, where is the evidence that the election was held, that is, that the proclamation was issued therefor?
as evidence of the proceedings or verdict of a court of justice; evidence which is thus preserved and may be appealed to in case of dispute.
[DOT]2274

What are these election papers, and what does the Act say about them? These election papers are issued under the order of the highest court in this country, the Parliament of Canada; and for the purpose of making sure that they shall be issued Parliament appoints a Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer is vested with quasi-judicial powers; he has to see that this law is carried out according to the terms which Parliament has enacted. The definition of " record " as given by Murray is this:	" Evidence which is
preserved and may be appealed to in case of dispute." Section 75 of this Bill provides :
The Chief Electoral Officer shall, subject to the provisions of this Act. retain in his possession the papers transmitted to him by any returning officer,-
These papers are the election papers, and they are defined in the Interpretation Act. The section continues:
-with the return, for at least one year-
Nobody will dispute that for that year these papers which are in the custody of the Chief Electoral Officer are "records" of this House. If they are not, I do not know what they are.
__if the election is not contested during that
time, and, if the election is contested, then for one year after the termination of such contestation.
If the election is contested there is the evidence, which is kept to be used before the court in a determination of the case. The only evidence that the election has been held is the proclamation which says that on such a day, toy order of the Governor in Council, an election shall be held. I submit, therefore, that all these papers become records of this House and ought to be kept as such. If you want evidence of the fact that those who first drafted this law had the same idea as I have, take the wording of this Bill. Section 37 reads*
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officer shall, by a proclamation in form L, issued under his hand in the English and French languages in every electoral district in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and In the English language only-
What is the word "only" there for? If the contention of my hon. friends is right that the only official language in which this proclamation should be issued is the English language, why use the word "only?" That word was put in because those who were drafting the clause were giving to section 133 of the British North America Act the same interpretation that I am giving to

it to-night. If what my hon. friends contend was so clear in the minds of those who drafted the clause, all they had to say was that the proclamation should be issued in both the French and the English languages in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and stop there. But, as I say, their interpretation of section 133 was the same as mine.
Now, my hon. friend says that "record' does not mean these election papers; that what is and what is not to be considered a record is a matter to be interpreted by the courts. I contend that all papers which come into the custody or under the care of any officer of this House become "records" of the House if they are kept for a purpose. When these election papers go into the custody of the Chief Electoral Officer they are records in the custody of an officer of this House. If the election is contested he has to keep these papers one year after the proceedings in the contestation are ended. Why? Because these documents are to be used as evidence before a court of justice. I refer again to Murray's definition of "record" as "evidence which is preserved and may be appealed to in case of dispute.
If these papers are not to be "appealed to in case of dispute," why preserve them? The only use to which they can be put is to determine whether or not, when the election took place, everything was properly done. When there is a recount, from whom do you get the ballots and the papers? From the same officer. "Election papers" means all those documents which were used in an election. The strict interpretation of this clause, therefore, being that all documents used in a federal election become records of this House, it is imperative that they be printed in the official language of this country, which is a dual language, English and French, and they stand on a par. Statutes are not enacted for the purpose of throwing ink on a sheet of paper; they are supposed to mean something. If publication of these papers has been restricted in the other provinces to the English language, that restriction is an infringement of existing Tights. According to the Interpretation Act, Revised Statutes, the word "shall" is used-it is not permissive; it is imperative. In section 37, therefore, there is a command to print these notices in both languages in the two provinces mentioned and in English only in the other provinces.
Air. AlORPHY: The hon. gentleman says that the Chief Electoral Officer is bound under section 75 to keep the election papers in his possession for a year, and in case

of contested election for a further year from the termination of the contestation. Now, what does the Chief Electoral Officer do with them after that? '


Jacques Bureau: Does my hon. friend mean to say that the question whether a paper is a "record" depends upon whether it is preserved in perpetuity?


Mr. MORPHY:: I simply ask the question.


Jacques Bureau: He destroys them, I suppose. Does my hon. friend contend that a printed Bill used in this House is not a "record," even though it is of no further use'when it is merged into a statute? I say that the question whether a paper is a "record" does not depend on how long it is preserved. If a paper comes into the possession of an officer of this House for a purpose, in order that it may toe used as evidence in a court of justice or anywhere else, it becomes a "record" of this House, and under section 133 of the British North America Act it is imperative that it be printed in both languages. I make this point, not for tihe purpose of claiming anything, but for the purpose of showing my hon. friends opposite, \vho think they are always giving us privileges when under the constitution we have rights, that we are not here asking ifor privileges. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) has been ,moved in the best interest of the people pf Canada. I understand my hon. friends to answer our argument by saying: Why pot print the proclamation in Russian, in polish? I have more respect for the constitution than that. When the constitution states that 'the official language of this country shall be dual, that does not mean a dozen or eighteen languages. It is no use trying to get out of the difficulty in that iway. The language of Canada is dual; I do not say [which language is "the" language. There is but one official language in this country, and it is English and French, or if you like to reverse the two, French and English,-because the French language was here 'before the English language was. I say this, because the other pight the hon. member ifor Perth North (Mr. Morphy) said: When you give an inch to those fellows, they want an ell.
. Mr. MORPHY: No, a mile.


Jacques Bureau: Well, that is just like my hon. friend. That was beyond his vision, and he always looks beyond his vision when he makes Tash statements like that. We are not asking for any privileges; we 145
have always been giving in, giving in, and giving in. As I said just now, according to this section, there are many documents that come down to this House, and if we ,were to sit-


An hon. MEMBER:: Tight.


Jacques Bureau: No, but to sit still on our rights, we could delay the proceedings of this House. There is a rule in this House that says that before a Bill can be read the .second time, it shall be printed in both French and English. Time and again, we fiave refrained from insisting on that, because every hon. member on this side understands English, and when it came to a matter, of expediting business we all agreed not to insist on a Bill being printed in French. But I do not want the country to remain under the impression that the statement made in this House by my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) is true. There is not a discussion in this House on which We do not hold different opinions because "tot capita, tot sensus." There may ibe a thousand different interpretations that can be given to that section of the statute. But if my hon. friends opposite are sincere, I will make a proposition to them, and we shall settle the question once and for all. If my hon. friends opposite think that they are right and that this means that the proclamations and other documents should lbe printed in the English language only, I will ask them to accept this amendment. Let .the clause read as follows:
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officer shall, by a proclamation in form L, issued under his hand, and mailed one copy at least to the various postmasters of the post offices within his electoral district, indicate-
Drop out the words "in the English and French languages in every electoral district in 'the provinces of Quebec and Mani-,toba, and in the English language only in other electoral districts," and we shall go to the highest tribunal in the land and find out what section 133 of the 'constitution means. If my hon. friends opposite are willing to accept that amendment, I think the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) and the hon. member for Kent, N.B., (Mr. Leger) will be satisfied. There is the test.


Mr. GLASS:: Does the hon. member take the ground that it is necessary, according to the constitution, that these proclamations shall-he laid great emphasis on the word "shall"-be published in the English and French languages in all parts of this country?



. Mr. BUREAU: The section as it stands [DOT]says in so many words that the proclamations shall be printed in English and French in two provinces, namely, in Quebec and Manitoba, and then it says "and in English only in the other provinces." No other interpretation can be given to that than that Quebec and Manitoba are the only two provinces under the Act as it stands in which the proclamations have to be printed in English and French, because we have a right to determine these things. We may legislate ourselves ou't of certain rights if we want to do so; that is the privilege of a Parliament. But what I say is this. Drop out the words "in English and French in Quebec and Manitoba and in English only in the other provinces," and let the clause go at that, and publish the proclamations in English only. Then the courts will determine the matter.


Samuel Francis Glass: I think any hon. friend misunderstood my question. I asked him if he takes the ground that, according to the British North America Act, it is absolutely necessary that these proclamations in all parts of the Dominion shall foe published in both languages.


Jacques Bureau: I say that the British North America Act uses the word "shall." These election papers are a "record" of this House when they are returned to the Chief Electoral Officer, and the word "shall," according to the Interpretation Act, is imperative and not permissive. In other words, I say that if a man wanted to insist, if this clause did not read as it does to-day-if the words "in Etaglish and French in Manitoba and Quebec and in English only in the other provinces" were left out- he could compel the Chief Electoral Officer to print in every part of Canada, these proclamations in both the English and the French languages.


Samuel Francis Glass: My hon. friend's position is entirely illogical.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no.


Samuel Francis Glass: I say that it is, if he takes the ground that the proclamation must be published in both languages throughout the Dominion.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend does not understand me.


Samuel Francis Glass: Probably not.


Jacques Bureau: I am not discussing the clause as it stands to-day before the House. Clause 37 is a re-enactment of the section as it existed before-so I am informed by
	!! wf
the Acting Solicitor General. That clause determines in what provinces the proclamation shall be printed in both languages. There are two such provinces in the Dominion of Canada-Quebec and Manitoba. The clause goes further. I will read it to my hon. friend.
Air. GLASS; I want what the British North America Act says.


Jacques Bureau: I told my hon. friend that we could legislate ourselves out of certain rights and privileges if we wanted to. Parliament is free to say that those proclamations shall be printed in English or in French only in any part of Canada. But I say: If you are sincere, if you want to test the matter, drop out those words entirely from the clause, and then if anybody is dissatisfied, we shall go before the courts and have the matter determined and an interpretation given to this clause. Aly hon. friend need not laugh and shrug his shoulders. He knows very well, if we came to argue that point and have it determined by the court, what election papers constitute when they are in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer. I could have the court determine that they become "records" when they are in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer for a month or a year; and as long as they are "records" for any time at all they must follow the general rule to which records are submitted when they are records of this House. I said that I wanted to make myself clear on this point, because I do not want the hon. member for Perth North (Mr. Morphy) and some of his confreres to believe we are begging favours from them and to let 9 p.m. the country believe they are unwilling to grant favours. This is a right, and there is a way of testing that. Leave those words out of the clause; then let the proclamation be published in the French language only, if you like, or in the English language only, if you like, and let the people who feel aggrieved on account of such proclamation go before the courts and have the matter determined once and for all.


William Stevens Fielding: I realize that the question under discussion is not only one of great importance but one of a very delicate character, which we should all approach with a most sincere desire to find a ground of agreement. It is a question upon which many of our people hold very strong convictions. It is a question upon which perhaps a great many of our people have very strong prejudices, and these convictions

and these prejudices do often come into conflict. Just how far the French language is an official language in Canada is unhappily the subject of debate. Up to a certain point there is no question whatever. My hon. friends who have spoken before have indicated the point up to which there is no debate. There is no question that the French language is the language of this Parliament on equal terms with the English language. It is so in the Senate, it is so in the House of Commons, it is so in the province of Quebec, it is so, as the Acts have indicated, in the province of Manitoba. Up to that point there is no dispute. We all agree that as respects this Parliament and the legislature of Quebec and the legislature of Manitoba, the French and English languages stand on equal temis. The moment you pass beyond that, you get into the field of debate, and when hon. gentlemen who feel strongly on what I might call the French side assert that the French language stands equal with the English throughout the Dominion, they run to a point which is immediately resisted by a great many people. I am not trying to determine the question myself, but I do want us to clearly understand that- beyond that certain point, beyond the point of the legislatures of Quebec and Manitoba, and this Parliament, it is not a clear question. At all events, it is a question that always has been and I suppose always will be, in dispute. The records of this Parliament, we are told, are to be printed in French. The hon. member for Three Rivers has just put up what seems to me, as a layman, to be a pretty good interpretation of what the " records " should mean. It is a new view of the matter to me. I do not know whether it has been presented before. It is 'rather a curious fact that for fifty-odd years we have been viewing it in another way. If the question came before the Supreme Court, it is possible the view of my hon. friend would prevail, but that is a purely legal question on which I as a layman would not presume to express an opinion.
I prefer to consider the matter from the point of view of what I might call public convenience, mutual convenience, a desire to meet each other, if we can, on all these matters, to respect each other's convictions-aye, and sometimes to respect each other's prejudices when they are based upon convictions. If I look upon this matter entirely from the point of view of my constituents and my province, I want no change in the law as it now stands. So far as they are concerned, I am content with the clause as it stands in the Act. But if 145J
in another province some of my brother members find themselves embarrassed and in difficulty, I would like to be mindful of their troubles and not be so selfish as to think of only my own. Down in Nova Scotia we have a large French population, and I am glad to say that we have practically no language trouble whatever. We have adapted our school system, as far as possible, to the needs of our French-speaking people, and the result is that, every Frenchman, I believe, in the whole province of Nova Scotia understands and speaks both languages. We rejoice that it is so, and on behalf of the French-speaking people of Nova Scotia I would not desire any change whatever.
But my hon. friend from New Brunswick (Mr. Turgeon) says that they have difficulties in his province and he would like to meet them. If the object of his amendment is simply to provide a proclamation in French for those who cannot read English, if it is a practical question, then I am heartily with him. I sympathize largely with his object, but I do not quite like the words in which he has drawn his amendment. He proposes to leave it to be determined by the Chief Electoral Officer sitting in Ottawa as to the cases, other than those specified in the Aet, in which a proclamation in French shall be issued. I do not like that provision. I do not think the Chief Electoral Officer sitting here in Ottawa is the officer best qualified to know the conditions with regard to language in all parts of Canada. I do not think it is very practical. I am not going to move any amendment, because it is too delicate and serious a matter to plunge into amendments. I am simply going to offer a suggestion to the minister which is in line with that of the hon. member for Gloucester to a certain extent and in line with what I understood my hon. friend from Northumberland to suggest, although he made no motion. My point is that if there is any community in Canada where the people do not understand the English language, I do not care in what province it is, I am willing to give them a proclamation in French. I am not willing to give it to them in Italian, I am not willing to give it to them in German. I am not scared by this idea that if we do this for our French friends we must do it for all other nations; the French language does not stand in Canada on an equal footing with the Italian or the German, it has, within certain limits, a clear and distinct position, and within those limits I would like to stand by and support my hon. friends-when they go

beyond that and want something else, perhaps I cannot agree with them. I am not prepared to say that the Italian, or the German, or the Scandinavian, or any other man of foreign birth who comes to-Canada has the same language rights in Canada as our French friends. The French language has a certain established right in Canada, and I am willing that that be recognized and given even beyond strictly what the law proposes.
I have said that in the province of Nova Scotia we have a large French population. In the western part of Nova Scotia, in Yarmouth county, and in the neighbouring county of Digby, there is a large French population. Coming east to Halifax county, in the eastern part, there is a considerable French population. Passing further east, in the county of Antigonish, in the county of Inverness, in the county of Richmond, and in fact in quite a number of the districts of Nova Scotia, there is a large French-speaking population. But inasmuch as they all understand and speak the English language, as they have never made any demand whatever to have these documents published in French, I do not want any proceedings to be taken to publish the proclamation in French with the view of obliging anybody down there. The French-speaking people of Nova Scotia do not need it, they do not want it, they have never asked for it. But if there are in New Brunswick or any other province substantial groups of people speaking the French language and not understanding English, I say that in that case I would give the returning officer the right to decide to publish the proclamation there in French;-no, not the right to decide: if he has knowledge that there is a substantial group of French-speaking people in an electoral district who do not understand English, and will not understand the proclamation if published in English, then it should be his duty to publish the proclamation both in French and in English. With that object in view I am going, not to make a motion, for the matter is too serious to rush into motions, but to offer this for the consideration of my hon. friend from Gloucester, because I think it is his idea, and to ask the minister to give it due consideration. I would not alter the clause as it stands, but I would put in this proviso at the end: " Provided, however, that in any electoral district in which, to the knowledge of the returning officer, there is a considerable number of electors who are familiar with the French language but do not under-
stand the English language, the proclamation shall be issued in both languages."


Mr. RINFRET:: In offering a few remarks on this clause I may say that in clear recognition of the principle involved in it, my first intention was to speak in French, but I realize that by so doing I would place some of my hon. friends opposite in precisely the same position in which they want to place the French-speaking electors of New Brunswick. For this reason, therefore, and for the cause of good understanding, I will strive to offer my remarks in English. The minister asked a moment ago if we were asking for the recognition of a right. I must say that personally I have been very much impressed by the case made by my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). I listened to the reading of the clause by the minister and I think he has well demonstrated that election documents constitute properly "records" of the House and as such come within clause 133. If you turn to page 86 of this Bill yo.u will find Form L which is a:
Proclamation of the returning officer declaring time and place fixed for the nomination of candidates, and the day for opening the poll.
I understand this form has been translated and constitutes a part of the French translation of the Bill. I submit that these same proclamations come within clause 133 for these reasons: First,, because they are records of Parliament and also because they are part of an Act of Parliament. I would go further. I think that we on this side of the House have shown large tolerance. We have been suggesting different ways out of the difficulty. My hon. friend from Gloucester was ready to leave it to the Chief Electoral Officer to decide in which constituencies these proclamations should be translated. My hon. friend from Three Rivers was perfectly willing to leave it to the courts to decide. And now we have another suggestion from my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) who, if I understand him aright, wants merely to put a proviso at the end of the clause in order to cover the case of constituencies where a large portion of the population is French. Any of these suggestions, if the minister will accept it, will meet with our views.
What we do object to is to leave in an Act of the Parliament of Canada a provision that these proclamations may be issued in English only in other electoral districts which means all electoral districts outside of Quebec and Manitoba leaving out those portions of New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia and some parts of Ontario where a large portion of the population is French. It has been shown that in New Brunswick one-third of the population is French; it has been shown that in Ontario you hare three hundred thousand people who speak French; and it has been shown that in the Maritime Provinces one hundred and eighty thousand people speak French. Under these circumstances, I submit, a large portion of the population would be deprived of the right of reading these proclamations in their own language.
I would go further and say that what we ask for is not at all cumbersome. To issue these proclamations in the two languages would not be expensive and it would be very useful. This matter receives added importance by reason of the fact that we now have the woman vote. There is a large number of eases where a man will speak both languages whereas his wife and some of his children will not because they have lived within the more restricted area of the family circle. By reason of the increased French population in some of the counties, and also by reason of the fact that women have been given the vote, it is more necessary than ever that the proclamations should be issued in these counties in both languages. It is not only a matter of dealing with the law but it is also a matter of carrying out the spirit of the law. This clause 133 has often come up for consideration in this House. I remember that when it was my pride to be a member of the press gallery I listened very often to the discussion of that clause. There are two classes of opinion as to the meaning of the clause. One is the broad school, the school of broadminded men, who consider that the recognition of the bilingual principle will be beneficial to this country and who are quite willing to apply it every time that occasion arises. There is another school of opinion, a school-I will say without hesitation-of narrow-minded men who consider the fact "that we should have two official languages in this country as a near-calamity and every time an opportunity presents itself for the application of the principle to the French language they are trying to restrict the sense of the clause to their own narrow interpretation of it. I should think that my hon. friend the minister is inclined to be of the former school because when my hon. friend from Gloucester first presented his case the minister admitted that he sympathized with the proposition and said that he would take it into consideration,
and that he hoped he would be able to come back with some amendment meeting our views. We went to bed that night with the vain hope that it would materialize. Unfortunately this clause was left over for a few days, and this afternoon the minister makes the statement that he can do nothing. He went as far as to say-I hope I am not misquoting him-I took down his words:
I am not personally prejudiced against the extension of the French language in this respect. but I know that other people are prejudiced against it.
, I think that is what the minister said this afternoon. I would like to ask him:	who are those men, who are
those members of the House who are prejudiced against the French language to such an extent that they have prevented him against his inclination, from yielding to our demand and forced him to come back here and make the statement that he could not do anything? The other day the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) put a question in this House, as follows:
Would my hon. friend raise any objection to changing this clause so as to make it compulsory for the proclamation to be printed in forty or fifty languages throughout the Western part of the country?
My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has just dealt with that side of the matter, but I would like to add this to what has been said: I understand that we have before us an electoral Bill and that in order that a man shall have the right to vote in this country he must first he naturalized. If I turn to the Naturalization Act of 1919 I find in clause 2 subsection (3) that one of the essentials to naturalization is that he is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of either the English or French language.
' I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is not one elector in this country who can vote .unless he has been naturalized, and that there is not one elector who has been naturalized without being able to speak either French or English. Therefore, I think that the question put by my hon. friend was .altogether irrelevant.
, I have much respect for the people of this country who speak Italian or any other language that it pleases them to speak, but I think that if they are electors they are ,in good standing with our Constitution only if they speak either French or English. I do not wish to extend the discussion any further, but before I take my seat I would like to put on Hansard a few lines from an

editorial in the Montreal Star of yesterday on the bilingual question generally:
The Bilingual Canadian.
A knowledge of French-by which is not meant merely a bowing acquaintance-is a very valuable asset throughout the world. In Canada it is naturally of peculiar value. Ninety per cent of the suspicion and misunderstanding between the two groups that make up this country's population and that retard the progress and well-being of Canada is due to the inability of these groups to understand each other's mother tongue.
Whether or not compulsory French or English in our schools and universities is a wise policy, there is certainly no doubt about the wisdom of the French or English student who determines to learn the other language. He is the master of an asset which will serve and- sooner or later-pay him well. More than that, he is a better Canadian.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these are not any words, they are the words of a newspaper that we have no reason to suspect of any partiality towards us. Yet it says that giving due regard and justice to both languages in this country makes one a better Canadian. I hope the .minister will resist the opposition to this clause being changed -a change which is likely to have the effect of making many of our people better Canadians-and will yield to our demand that the clause be properly amended.
Mr. EDWARD'S:	The hon. member for
Shelburne and Queen's said this was a very delicate question, and I think he repeated the word "delicate" several times, so impressed was he with the delicacy of the subject which he was discussing. The hon. gentleman to-day finds this question delicate as he found it in the past. It was too delicate a question for the hon. gentleman to deal with at all, previous to the elections of 1900, 1904, 1908, or 1911 when he was a member of the Government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurder. And, for part of that time at least, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was a member of that administration as Solicitor General. A great wrong was being inflicted upon certain classes ol people in this country then, and there was a great opportunity for those hon. gentlemen who were members of the Government of the day to take the necessary steps to remove these wrongs. Now, as illustrating the wrongs that were being inflicted during all those years upon certain groups of French Canadians who were settled in different parts of the country, I wish to place on record a statement made by the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in this House on the 23rd February, 1910:
To-day the sun in his daily career doeo not shed his light upon any people on the face of
[Mr. Fielding.!
the earth enjoying more liberty than my fellow-countrymen of French extraction.
That was an expression of opinion from the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier one year prior to the election of 1911, and in view of that statement there could not have been any outcry at that time front the hon. member for Three Rivers, the hon. member for tBeauce (iMr. Reland), the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, nor the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who were all members of the Liberal Government. Not one of these gentlemen at that time raised the cry that the French settlers grouped in different parts of the country were being imposed upon or were being deprived of their rights. But my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's now says it is a delicate question. Yes, too delicate for him to touch and too delicate it has been for him to touch in the past. During all the time he had the power, and the right, and the opportunity to afford redress, it was too delicate a question for him and his colleagues to have anything to do with.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this matter may be considered from two standpoints. When it was up in the House a few days ago hon. gentlemen opposite took a somewhat different ground from what they are taking to-day. I do not think that the hon. member for Kent, N.B., took any different ground; but other hon. gentlemen on that occasion rather emphasized this point, that there were in certain parts of the country-in the constituencies of Gloucester and Kent, N.B., and other ridings down there, as well as in certain constituencies in Ontario and other provinces- groups of French Candians who suffered inconvenience or were placed at a disadvantage because they were unable to read the election proclamation as it was printed in English. The other night it was a question of inconvenience or inability on the part of these people to read the proclamation. To-night they have somewhat departed from that attitude. Now if you take the ground that the election proclamation should be printed in another language than English because of the inability of certain portions of the people to read it in English, then I contend that you must open the door to the people of other "nationalities who are resident in various parts of this country, because I find that in the province of Manitoba the Hermans and the Austrians are each more numerous than the French Canadians in that province. I also find that in the province of Saskatchewan and in the province of Alberta like-

wise, the Germans, Austrians and Scandinavians are much more numerous than the French Canadians. If then it is right to claim that the proclamation should be printed so that all the people of the country may be able to read it and thereby inform themselves as to the instructions to be given to the electors-if that is the ground you are to take, then I say your argument for having it printed in French will apply with equal force to having that document printed in German, Austrian, Scandinavian, and a great many other languages. But hon. gentlemen took a different position to-day. They assumed the position that the proclamations should be printed in the French as well as in English because the constitution conferred that right. In that connection my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's was very emphatic in stating that he would not print the proclamation in Italian, or in Austrian, or in Scandinavian, or in any of these other languages. One part of my hon. friend's argument was that there are certain French Canadians who are unable to inform themselves as to this proclamation because it is printed in a language they cannot understand; and at the same time the hon. gentleman say's he will let thousands and tens of thousands of people of other nationalities remain in ignorance so far as the election proclamation is concerned. That is the attitude which these hon. gentlemen have taken.


Jacques Bureau: If my hon. friend will allow me a correction, I think he is not fair to me; I never took that attitude.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was referring to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend spoke of hon. members on this side. If the hon. gentleman will refer to Hansard he will find that I took the very same position on the occasion to which he alludes that I have taken to-night.


William Cameron Edwards: My remarks-and I applied them correctly-had reference to the attitude taken by certain hon. gentlemen opposite. I said that they were taking a somewhat different position from the one they took the other night. Possibly I may not have done justice to my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) in that respect; but my impression of the discussion the other night was that the claim was put forward principally on the ground that there were a number of people-residents of certain constituencies in New Brunswick and elsewhere-who were unable to inform
themselves in regard to the proclamation and instructions issued at election time because they could not read the English language. I repeat again that so far as my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's is concerned he is perfectly willing for all other people to remain in that condition of ignorance excepting those of French origin. In that respect I might point out that in so far as hon. gentlemen opposite agree to the position taken by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, they are not quite so kindly disposed towards the people in this country of alien enemy birth as they were yesterday when another matter was in question. They were very solicitous in regard to certain people in this country when discussing another clause of this Franchise Act; they are not so solicitous in regard to those people when it comes to discussing this particular matter.
Now, I want for a few moments to discuss the question from the other standpoint- and the only other standpoint from which, it seems to me, it should be discussed. Is this a question of constitutional right? My hon. friend from Three Rivers is very emphatic in declaring that in his opinion it is. I think I am stating that correctly.


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Well, my hon. friend
has a perfect right, to that opinion, and I am sure that he will concede to me the right to differ from him. And, Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say to my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) that if I choose to hold a different opinion in regard to this matter, I do not think he should accuse me of being narrow-minded and arrogate to himself great breadth of vision. Because in this regard I am in very distinguished company-I cannot help but think that I am in the company of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who in his long parliamentary career evidently did not take the view which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken; because had he done so I think he would have adopted measures to give to his French-Canadian compatriots the rights which these hon. gentlemen claim they have under the constitution.
I want to quote an expression of opinion by Senator Belcourt in regard to this very matter, and it seems to me that his opinion has all the greater weight because evidently it was voiced by him with considerable regret. He said:
The true fact, regrettable as It may be, is that for the federal domain and the provincial domain of Quebec there is but the constitution which defines enuality of both languages at the

Dominion Parliament, at the Quebec Parliament, before the federal tribunal or courts; and also before the courts of the province of Quebec is the French language on an equal footing with the English language.
Section 133 of the British North America Actwhich has been referred to here by several hon. members to-night

-which proclaims equal rights of the French and English before the federal House, the federal courts and before the provincial House of Quebec and the provincial courts, and in section 93 of the same Act, which gives to each province the exclusive power to legislate in matters of education, constitute the sum total of the rights officially recognized in favour of the French-Canadian people of the Dominion of Canada; these are the only rights recognized in favour of our race; they are the only rights which cannot be stripped from us without the intervention of the Imperial Parliament; they are the only rights which the constitution and the law formally guaranteed to us; they are the only rights which the law will permit us to exact and about which it gives us the means whereby to exact the same.
I am giving the words of Senator Bel-court whose position and attitude in regard to the bilingual question no person can question-and a similar interpretation has already been given very clearly by the hon. minister (Mr. Guthrie). As far as I can see, at all events, there is no manner of doubt as regards the constitutional rights of French Canadians to the use of their language in the province of Quebec as laid down by the constitution. No person has thought of depriving them of those rights. In my judgment, hon. members are seeking to read into that constitution words which I cannot see there-and my eyesight to-night is better than the eyesight of my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) was last night.
It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say that the French language stands on a different footing in this country from any other language except English. That I am quite willing to concede. The manner in which, and the degree to which, the French language stands on that different footing is very clearly laid down in the constitution; and I want to be distinctly understood as expressing my opinion that outside of those constitutional provisions the French language, as such, has no more right to be used, we will say, in the province of Saskatchewan, or the province of Alberta, or the province of Ontario, than has any other language. I ask my hon.- friends not to put words in my mouth which I do not use;
I say there is no constitutional right-if this is to be argued from the sentimental standpoint, that is another matter entirely, and everybody has a right to his ODinion.

But I am challenging the position taken by the hon. members from Kent, N.B., Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), and St. James (Mr. Rinfret) who have argued that the French language has a constitutional right equal to that of the English language in any province of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to be mis-' quoted. I never argued that the French language was on a par with the English language in every province. I argued that every document of this House should be printed in French as well as in English, and I claim that electoral documents are documents of record. It turns on the word "record".


William Cameron Edwards: Then I say that a proclamation is not a "record" of this House. It may be presumptuous for me to advance my opinion against that of a lawyer, but I have done so before and escaped with my life, and I shall do so again. I do not regard a proclamation as a record of this House; my hon. friend does. Very well, we must agree to differ. I hope that my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) will not charge me with narrow-mindedness because I do not agree with my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). It is quite natural for my hon. friend from St. James to consider that all the breadth of vision is to be found on his side of the House, as it is also quite natural for him to think that only those who agree with the hon. member for St. James are to be included in the class of broad-minded men, while those who differ from him belong to the class called narrow-minded. My hon. friend may entertain that opinion if he chooses. I understand that he is a very able lawyer, but if I, as a layman, might venture to say so, he is not very logical in putting forth his claim along that line.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand that my hon. friend has referred to me as a lawyer.
I am proud to say that I am a newspaper man.


William Cameron Edwards: I am very glad indeed to hear my hon. friend say that he is not a lawyer.


Henri Sévérin Béland: So are we.


Joseph Archambault: What have they done to you?


William Cameron Edwards: I think my hon. friend would be quite justified in rising to a question of privilege when I said he was a lawyer. However, I was under the impression that he was a lawyer. There are

many in the House who would think that my hon. friend ought to take that as a very great compliment.
If we are to consider this matter from the standpoint of convenience, there are in the western provinces thousands of people of different nationalities who have proved themselves to be first-class citizens, who have endeavoured to do their part since coming to this country. Not all have done this, but many have. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) would have the proclamation issued in French in Alberta where, according to the last census, there were some 19,000 French people, but he would not have it printed in Scandinavian, although there are 28,000 Scandinavians in that province. Nor would he permit it to the Austrians and Germans, who number' 26,000 and 36,000 respectively. In Saskatchewan there are 68,000 Germans, 41,000 Austrians, 33,000 Scandinavians and only 33,000 French Canadians, but my hon. friend says most emphatically that he would not consent to the printing of the proclamation in Scandinavian, Austrian or any other than the French language. Mr. Chairman, it does not make fo-r unity in this country to have these proclamations printed in these several languages. I venture to say that the proposing of this amendment will have served the purpose of hon. gentlemen opposite, broad-minded though they be, if it has given them for the next election something in the nature of a grievance to parade before their electors. I venture to say that some of them have that in mind, just as it was a part of a well-laid plan when the present member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) in 1916 moved his bilingual resolution in this House-he was paving the way for something that he could present to the electors of the province of Quebec in order to solidify them and hold them together. So that, if hon. gentlemen are thinking along that line, why, the purpose of their resolution will be served.
Now, I recognize the value of being able to speak more than one language. But I want to tell my hon. friends that one difficulty standing in the way of just such moves as the move they are making here to-day is found in the fact that they couple their language and their religion together in such a way as to deprive certain people from living in certain parts of this country. Let me repeat, that, so that my words will be distinctly understood. There are certain places in the province of Ontario; there are certain places in other portions of this Dominion, where English-speaking people cannot live.
because conditions make it impossible for them to live there.


Edmond Proulx: What does my hon. friend mean?


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend should be the last one to ask that; he knows perfectly well what I mean.


Edmond Proulx: I do not know.
'Mr. EDWARDS:	I mean simply this:
that in certain sections of the county of Prescott, represented by my hon. friend, it is impossible for an English-speaking Protestant to live and raise his children, because of the fact that there is only one school for those children to go to, and that is a school in which the French language predominates and in which the Roman Catholic catechism is taught. I am not criticizing or saying anything in regard to any man's religion,-


Mr. CANNON:: I rise to a point of order. I would like to know if under this clause the hon. member is allowed to discuss the school system in Ontario or in any other province. If he is, I will speak after he finishes.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not understand that the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) had entered into a discussion of that subject. I understood his remark to be a reply to a question put by the member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx). If, however, there is any intention of entering into a discussion of this nature, the point of order would be well taken.


William Cameron Edwards: I was endeavouring to make clear my opposition to the amendment proposed by the member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). I am stating candidly and honestly what I believe to be a serious objection to just such movements as this movement which is being made here to-day. I do not want any person to misinterpret anything I say; I do not want any person to be in doubt as to what I say. I was answering my hon. friend (Mr. Proulx) by saying that in certain sections of the country where you have a separate school system and certain church dogma taught, and where you have a certain language as the language of communication and instruction, you make it impossible for Englishspeaking persons to live in that section of the country. We have had numerous examples throughout Canada; because of the conditions I have indicated persons have been obliged to leave sections of the country and seek home6 elsewhere. That is what I

say; my hon. friend understands perfectly the point that I am making. I am not making it in any spirit of harshness at all; I am using it as I believe I am entitled to use it. -


Mr. PROTJLX:: But the English language is taught in all those schools.


William Cameron Edwards: There is no use in
discussing this point further, Mr. Chairman. I was using it merely as an argument. I thought I had made myself perfectly clear in regard to it. There does seem to me to be a very great difference, I may tell my hon. friend, in that matter. A person may go into an English section and there is nothing to interfere; the children will hear nothing from morning till night which will cause offence. I think I have made my point clear. But I will say this in regard to this matter of the French language and its use and its recognition: if my hon. friends opposite who are concerned in regard to the use of this language will use their influence to dissociate their language from the prevailing religion of their province so that we can have non-sectarian schools, then they will very largely remove any opposition there would be to the extension and the general use of the French language throughout this country. I leave that with my hon. friends in order that they may consider and weigh it well.
I want to point out to the Government that there is no use in shutting our eyes to certain definite and well-known facts. There is a feeling in Ontario-whether that feeling is rightly or wrongly founded-against bilingualism. There is a feeling in the western provinces somewhat along the same line. In Manitoba it has manifested itself. There they have a one-language school; that represents public opinion in Manitoba. In Saskatchewan and Alberta they have been and are making strenuous efforts to bring the foreign population there to the point of recognizing the public school and the English language.
As a matter of constitutional right, my hon. friend's contention is not well founded, that the French language should have a recognition ahead of all other languages in other parts of the country than the provinces named in the constitution. I cannot conceive of such a thing as this House of Commons, this Parliament, deliberately agreeing to placard the Dominion of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific with proclamations in half a dozen or a dozen different languages at every election. That would be giving a certain amount of encouragement to 
certain people who are coming to this country to make their homes here, and I do not think that would be in the interest' of Canada, nor would it help in unifying the people of this country. Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment. The people of New Brunswick may be put to a certain inconvenience, tout I cannot think, according to all I have heard with regard to that province, there is much difference in the population now from what it was at the last election or in the election of 1911. Somehow or another they got along with the proclamation as it was at those times and we heard nothing in the way of complaint. If those hon. gentlemen are so much concerned about people of different nationalities being unable to _ read the proclamation in English, it 'will not cost them very much to put their hands into their own pockets and they themselves defray the cost of having the proclamation printed in half a dozen different languages. But it is another matter when you recognize this as a constitutional right, and I am not prepared to accept the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite, namely, that they are merely asking for what is their right under the constitution. Let them
10 p.m. convince me of that and I will fall in line at once without any further word. I am not convinced of that, and I maintain, although I am not a lawyer, that my argument in this regard is sound, that you cannot give to different races in this country certain privileges which they ask, without, to a certain extent, depriving others of constitutional rights which they enjoy under the British North America Act. My rights and theirs are, to a certain extent, relative, one to the other, and if, on sentimental or any other grounds, you give to any group, certain privileges to which they are not entitled under the constitution, by doing so you are depriving me of some of the rights which I hold under the constitution.


Andrew Ross McMaster: (Translation) :	Mr. Chairman, I hope you will
overlook the many errors I am liable to make when I rise to address this House in a language which is not my mother tongue. I intend adding my feeble voice in support of the request made by the revered member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon).
Mr. Chairman, in addressing the House in a tongue which is not my own, I am in the first place encouraged by the example given by the Acting or Outgoing-d do not know which-Prime Minister, who has of late, on many occasions, expressed his

mind in the language of Moliere. I am further encouraged to do so toy the example given by my French-speaking colleagues on this Side of the House, who use the language of Shakespeare with a fluency which all the members of the House of Commons of Canada envy them.
I do not to-night propose to present a very technical argument upon the constitutionality of the question now before the House. I intend to appeal to my fellow-members' spirit of justice and generosity. We live in a bilingual country. In federal matters both languages are on the same footing. As Sir John A. Macdonald once said, "In Canada we have no dominant race," and, in consequence, we have no dominant language. If we consider such a condition as admitted, what is the inference? We have two official languages. The proclamation is an official document which is published in order that every subject, every citizen, may understand it. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) says: "If you take that ground, then you will have to print this document in German and all the languages of the different nationalities, of the different races who live in Canada." Not at all, Mr. Chairman, not at all. The French people hold in this country a position very different from that of the Germans, the Austrians, the Italians and others. I appeal to the history of my country; I appeal to the leading men of the I7th century who are called Champlain, Maisonmeuve, La Salle. After all, the inhabitants of the province of Quebec weTe the foremost pioneers of the land; they have in this country a right which the other new-comers do not possess. That was admitted when the country was transferred over to England; it was admitted at Confederation, and the two races, the French Canadian race and the English or Scotch or Irish-Canadian race are on the same footing, both languages are on the same footing in federal matters.
It is a pleasure for me to point out Quebec as an example. I dare mention the name of Quebec! A few years ago the name of Quebec was spurned throughout the whole Dominion, but to-day it is said to. be the last fortress of liberty and civilization. In the province of Quebec we have municipalities where you can find Frenchmen, or Tather Canadians, who speak French and Canadians who speak English. In these municipalities all notices are printed in both languages'; but where the population is entirely of either language, in such municipalities the 'Lieutenant-Governor, in Council may enact that only one language
can be used. That is common sense; this practice is consistent with good sense. We ask for the enforcement of that practice in the present case.
We have in this country of ours some people who are beset, if I am allowed to use that expression, with the fear that the English language may suffer. Mr. Chairman, I am a Canadian of Scotch descent; the English language is my mother-tongue, and notwithstanding the fact that the French language is as beautiful and clear as spring water, the tongue of Moliere is not superior in my estimation to the tongue of Shakespeare or Milton. Even if there should be a certain amount of rivalry between the two forms of speech, my mother-tongue has nothing to fear.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I
ask the hon. member a question?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Certainly, with pleasure.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. member agree with my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), as to the interpretation to be given to the word "only" in the section under discussion?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think I have somewhat wasted my oratorical effort on the hon. member from Perth (Mr. Morphy) for I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not intend to bring forward technical arguments in this discussion. I believe that the hon. member for Three Rivers is right as usual, yet I want to say this: I am not here to follow the example of the Scribes and Pharisees of old, who scrutinized only the letter of the law; I want to appeal to-day to the spirit of the law, to the sense of justice and to the sense of fairness of my fellow-citizens.
The opponents of the French language in Canada to-day, bring forward especially two arguments in every discussion that arises. The first argument is founded on apprehension. Some people are afraid that the English language may lose some ground in this country through the spread of the French language in this country. If I be permitted, let me call the attention of this House to the fact that the people in the province of Quebec are endeavouring to learn the English language. A lot of my French-speaking friends, in. the city of Montreal, see to it that their children are taught in English, even at the same time or even before they are taught their mother tongue. In the province of Quebec, we are anxious to speak English. Such apprehen-

sions as were mentioned a moment ago are absolutely groundless. The other argument brought forward by the opponents of the French language is founded upon hope. Those people entertain the view that a wider and stouter national spirit will be fostered with only one rather than two languages in this country. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to give the House two illustrations in this regard. You have only one language in Ireland; I believe that is the Connaught and Ulster provinces, only the English language is spoken. But notwithstanding the fact the population of the whole of Ireland speaks one language only, have they succeeded in creating a feeling of harmony between the various nationalities living in that country? Unfortunately, no. I shall give you another illustration: Take Switzerland, that magnificent little republic of Switzerland. Three official languages thrive in that country: German, French and Italian, and I think that republic of Switzerland is fired by a national spirit as vigorous as that existing in any country in the world.
I am very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for the kindly attention you have given to my remarks. I beg those of my hon. friends who noticed my too numerous mistakes to excuse me, and I thank the others who did not understand my remarks for the patience they have shown.


Mr. BOYCE:: Would the hon. member be good enough to repeat that speech in English? I am sure it must be very good.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would be very glad to repeat it, except that it would be an imposition on those members who have so kindly listened to me in French.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Chairman, is it not against the rules to repeat the same thing in the House of Commons?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is a rule oi the House which declares that an hon. member must not repeat his own arguments or the arguments of any other member. The hon. member for Brome very politely declined to repeat his speech in English, and therefore followed very closely the rule of the House.


Jacques Bureau: The question of the hon. member for Carleton was out of order.


John Hampden Burnham: This question which has aroused so much antipathy between the French and English in this country ought surely some day to be treated seriously. As hinted by the hon. member for Fron-
[Mr. McMaster.f
tenac (Mr. Edwards) it has been used largely in the past as election ammunition. It is too serious a matter for that. The English regard the French with too much affection and respect to treat it otherwise than seriously.


Thomas Vien: Do you think so?


John Hampden Burnham: And I hope the French will treat the English a little more seriously. So far the only hon. member who has endeavoured to put this question upon firm ground is the hon. member for Three Rivers. He argues the question as a matter of constitutional right, a right which the French Canadian has had created for him. He has had no other rights created for him than laid down in the law. The hon. member for St. James, and, I am sorry to say, my old friend the hon. member for Gloucester, the hon. member for Kent, N.B., and others, have persisted in dragging in sentiment-they are asking to have this right extended as one of privilege or favour. But the hon. member for Three Rivers repudiates it as a favour, and stands upon his legal right, and with that course I agree. Far be it from me or any other man who has any respect for justice to wish to see the French Canadians or anybody else rifled of their rights under the constitution. When they think those rights are being taken from them, let them appeal to the proper tribunal and have an interpretation given, and the rights restored, if necessary. But this perennial course of insinuation, this everlasting innuendo, this effort to widen the cleavage between the two races, is absolutely wrong and absolutely unjust. We want to give the French their rights. I cannot repeat too often, we insist upon giving the French their rights.


Lucien Cannon: We can look after that all right.


Air. BEST:: The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) was able to take care of himself during the war.


John Hampden Burnham: Possibly, but my hon. friend prides himself on being an Irishman, not a Frenchman. I am talking to the French Canadians.	*


Thomas Vien: All oppressed people sympathize with each other.


John Hampden Burnham: If hon. gentlemen are going to interrupt in this way, let them carry on the debate. I wish to say further that when we have reached this firm ground of constitutional right, we must continue to

respect it. It is set out in detail, and if it is not clear, it is capable of being made clear by, the proper tribunal. To introduce therefore, an amendment at the present time which directly purposes to extend rights, really means that the rights do not exist, and, therefore, on behalf of the French Canadians I repudiate the amendment. If you try to extend rights and admit that you are trying to extend them, as this hon. member who has interrupted so frequently has said-he said that the law was being made here to-night-


Thomas Vien: Undoubtedly.


John Hampden Burnham: -I say it is not being made here to-night. That is how this whole question is being bedevilled by people insisting on jumping up and interjecting new laws into the constitution every little while with respect to things which can only be-


Thomas Vien: I wish to correct the statement of my hon. friend. I did not say that we were initiating a right; I only said that we were at present working on an electoral act, that that is the law we are now making. I did not express any opinion as to whether we had this right previously or not. I only said we were making an electoral act.


John Hampden Burnham: Then I do not understand, as you will readily see, Mr. Chairman, the purport of his previous interruption, or interjection, or intervention, or whatever you choose to call it. I say further, it is high time that the French^Can-adians rested upon the letter of the law and stood upon their rights. If they think they are not obtaining those rights, let them ask for an interpretation and insist on getting them, and we will back them up. But they are placing us in a position where they charge us with being narrowminded and prejudiced, when as a matter of fact we are here charged with the responsibility of maintaining the law as it stands. That law is well defined. It has been admirably set out by the hon. member for Three Rivers. It is this idea of bringing in all sorts of little sentimental appeals to our sympathy and indulgence, to our generosity, broad-mindedness and liberal-spiritedness, that makes the question not one of law, not one of right, but one of sympathy. It then becomes a political football, to be used at election time, or any other time, throughout this country. Just so sure as those gentlemen insist on making this a matter of sympathy, a matter of natural right, and not of legal right, just so sure as they succeed in establishing that, I, for my part, will vote the Norwegian, and the Scandinavian, and the Italian, and everybody else the same natural rights, because natural rights are not legal rights, but rights that belong by the very nature of the case. These other people have the same natural rights as the Frencli-Canadian or the English-Canadian, but they have not the legal rights that the French-Canadians or the Engl'ish-Canadians have. Let the FrenchnCanadians therefore insist upon their legal right. Let them stick to that, and not endeavour, as in this case, to introduce amendments that may go very far in the direction of impairing the very rights which they at present enjoy.


Lucien Cannon: In dealing with this
clause, I think the members of the committee ought to bear in mind that this is a federal, and not a provincial matter, and secondly, that we are actually engaged in framing a new electoral law for Canada. This House and this committee are therefore perfectly free to insert in this new electoral law whatever clauses they deem fit.
The hpn. member for Frontenac founded the main argument of his speech on the basis of what might have happened in previous years in several provinces of Canada. He spoke of the province of Manitoba and the province of Ontario. I say that this House and this committee are not concerned with what might have happened in the province of Manitoba or the province of Ontario, because we are dealing with the French language as it should be dealt with by the House of Commons of Canada, and there is a wide distinction to be observed.
The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), with great generosity, which we certainly will not forget, speaking, as he said, on behalf of and in the name of the French-Canadians, said that he repudiated the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Gloucester, who wishes to amend the clause now under consideration to protect the rights of some of his constituents. I may say to the hon. member for West Peterborough that we on this side of the House are better qualified and better posted to speak on behalf and in the name of the FrenchjCanadians, not only of Quebec, but of all Canada. We do not repudiate the amendment, we stand by it, by every word that it contains. As far as I am concerned, I would go further than the hon. member for Gloucester. I would ask this House, as the hon. member for Three Rivers has asked, to say, not simply that the proclamation by the re-

turning officer shall be printed in English and French in the provinces, of Quebec and Manitoba and in certain other sections of the country where the French population is large enough, but my contention is that according to the constitution as it reads to-day, and as it has been since Confederation, from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean the French and English languages are on an equal footing in federal matters. Let us have a clause in accordance with the provisions of the existing law, not mentioning the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba at all, or the languages in which the proclamation is to be printed, but simply say that the Chief Electoral Officer shall issue a proclamation in the various constituencies of Canada. I am not aware of any law which exists to-day which says that the proclamations ought to be printed in both languages in the nine provinces of Canada.
Before I discuss this proposition on its merits I wish to preface my argument with another remark. The Acting Solicitor General and other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House talked about privileges and favours. We stand in this House not asking for favours or privileges'; we are only seeking the legal recognition of our actual rights. 'The French minority in Canada is a minority that has an historical past. Our forefathers have written in the history of Canada pages that are beautiful enough to justify their children when they rise in the House of Commons not to seek favours but simply to urge their rights, and that is what we are doing. When I heard hon. members on the other side of the House saying that if the French language is to be used in proclamations in other provinces than Quebec and Manitoba, the proclamations would also have to be/ printed in Italian, German or Austrian, I felt that those who presented such an argument offered an insult to French Canadians and had forgotten the achievements of the French-Canadian people ever since Canada was discovered. We do not stand on the same level as the foreigner who has emigrated within the last fifty or one hundred years. Our forefathers came here when Canada was nothing but a wilderness, and if to-day Canada is a great and prosperous country the English as well as the French people of Canada owe it to those French pioneers who were the first to have the courage to explore its forests and change the wilderness that then existed into the beautiful cities and country districts that we now see. We have had

enough of this argument. I do not know whether it is due to the ignorance of hon. members on the other side, I do not say that it is due to their bad faith; but 1 do say that any man who dares in the House of Commons or anywhere else to pretend that the French Canadians are an inferior race, no matter what position he occupies, is entirely ignorant of the history of this country. We are here, at home. We have been at home in Canada for the last four centuries, and we will remain here, at home, no matter what people in other provinces want or wish. The province of Quebec is to-day setting an example to the rest of the country. For three years insults were hurled in the face of the Freneh-Cana-dian people. To-day we hear from every side, from every direction, from every lip, compliments to the French Canadian race. Compliments or insults will not disturb our equanimity of mind. We have our rights, and we will stand by them, and insist on them.
I said, Mt. Chairman, that constitutionally speaking the French language in Canada had rights, and rights superior to those of any other nation, and I will prove it. Look up the treaty, wffiieh was signed on the battlefield of Montreal, -when that city was handed to the British troops; look up the treaty which was further signed at Paris; look up the Act of Quebec which was guaranteed by the British authorities in 1775; look up these documents and in each of them it will be found that the French population of Canada are guaranteed the enjoyment of their language.


William Cameron Edwards: That is not right.


Lucien Cannon: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon?
. Mr. EDWARDS: I say that is not right.


Lucien Cannon: If the hon. gentleman is not of my opinion I would be very grateful if, instead of saying I am not right, he would support his statement with facts; I am perfectly willing to hear him.


William Cameron Edwards: I am prepared to do so. ,1 merely dissent from the hon. gentleman's very explicit and emphatic statement. He makes a most emphatic statement, which I most emphatically deny, I say that in the Quebec Act of 1774, and in the other Acts to which he refers, there is no mention of language. I have read those Acts as well as my hon. friend.


Lucien Cannon: When the hon. member read those Acts he may have read them in

the same way- as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) read the Ontario Act which was referred to in the discussion last night. I have read those documents, Mr. Chairman, and I say that from e very moment that the British troops were in this country victorious conventions or agreements were signed in the city of Montreal toy the general commanding the British army and the general commanding the French army by which the rights of the French population were guaranteed front that very moment.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman does not say that "language" iwas mentioned.


Lucien Cannon: I say that at that time there was ta mention of our laws, our religious customs and our language.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No, sir.


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: At Paris the same thing was done. In 1774 when the Quebec Act was passed-any hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) will not deny it-the customs existing in Lower Canada at that time as to laws, as to religion, and as to language, were secured by that Act. Let us go further, Mr. Chairman, in the history of our country; let us go to 1791 when the first Legislative Assembly iwas convened in Lower Canada. At that time-just as upon the present occasion in this Parliament- though nearly 150 years have elapsed-in the Legislative Assembly of Quebec in 1791 there were members like the hon. members for Frontenac, North Perth, and West Peterborough here, who thought that the rights of the French language should not exist-. A gentleman by the name Eich-ardson got up and made a speech in which my hon. friend from Frontenac may have found all his arguments, the arguments he gave us to-night. This gentleman, Mr. Chairman, in 1791, wanted to treat the French people as an inferior race in their own country. But the question was settled in [DOT] that year. I would ask the hon. members of this House to read the speeches delivered at that time when it was decided that the French language and the English language should be used in the Legislative Assembly as guaranteed by the existing laws.
The year 1840 gave us our next constitutional enactment. Lord Durham had come to Canada, and he thought that a good method of unifying Canada was to force the two races in this country to speak but one language. The recommendations of his report are'well known; I will not take up the time of the House in enumerating them. Under the Union Act as passed the French language was excluded from the House of Parliament. What happened? The French people protested, and When Lafontaine, that great patriot from Quebec, became the Premier of Canada, and when the province of Ontario gave a real Liberal whose name ,was Baldwin-when Baldwin and Lafontaine formed the great ministry of the Union party, for in those days men came from Ontario who were not afraid of standing for equal rights and equal privileges for ,botih races in this country, and when Baldwin supported Lafontaine, the Union Act was changed and the French language was restored t-o its former position in Canada. Ever since that day, Mr. Chairman, the beautiful and magnificent language of Racine, Corneille, and Moliere has been heard, and heard legally, in our Houses of Parliament.
We now -come to Confederation. We have had the British North America Act quoted in this House to-night by hon. gentlemen on both sides. The British North America Act, as you, Mr. Chairman, know, is the reproduction of the resolutions passed by the conference at Quebec in 1864, resolutions agreed to by the representatives of the provinces of Canada then convened in the city of Quebec-that is the provinces oi Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario-resolutions which were reconsidered at another conference held at Westminster Hotel in London; and finally these resolutions, after having been considered-by the Canadian Parliament, were enacted and embodied in what is called to-day -the British North America Act. There was one man in Canada who worked-and worked his very hardest

for the achievement of this great thing which we call Confederation, and that man was Sir John A. Macdonald, who had as his right hand man, as everybody knows, Sir George Etienne Cartier. In the House of Parliament -at that time this question of language was raised. If hon. gentlemen will refer to the Confederation debates they will see that Hon. Mr. Evanturel rose in the House and asked what about the rights of the French language. "According to these resolutions, -and according to the Act which will be passed by the Imperial Parliament, will the rights of the French language be secured and guaranteed?" These are the words spoken in reply by Sir John A. Macdonald, Father of Confederation, and the promoter of -the British North America Act.:

Hon. Attorney General Macdonald: I desire to say that I agree with my hon. friend that as it stands just now the majority governs; but in order to cure this, it wras agreed at the conference to embody the provision in the Imperial Act. (Hear, hear.) This was proposed by the Canadian Government, for fear an accident might arise subsequently, and it was assented to by the deputation from each province that the use of the French language should form one of the principles upon which the Confederation should be established, and that its use, as at present, should be guaranteed by the Imperial Act. (Hear, hear.)
We have here, Mr. Chairman, an express declaration from the then Premier of our country to the effect that the Imperial Act, and the resolutions on which the Imperial Act is based, recognized as a fundamental principle of Confederation the privileges of the French language as they existed at the time of Confederation. For, at the time of Confederation, as no hon. member will deny, the French and English languages were the official languages in both Lower and Upper Canada.
The Bill now before us provides that the Chief Electoral Officer will receive the documents and papers from the returning officer presiding at an election in each constituency. These papers are to be kept of record and will remain in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer for two years. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is that according to the British North America Act every parliamentary record has to be in French and in English; that this proclamation being a parliamentary record, should therefore be in English and French; and the clause as he said, should read simply that the proclamation will be issued, without mentioning in which language; then, according to the law it would mean that the proclamation would be printed both in English and in French.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer, but Mr. Chairman, I have heard arguments to-night which really astonished me. For instance, if I am not wrong, I heard an hon. gentleman say that if in other provinces the proclamations were issued in more than one language racial disunion would be promoted. During the recent war if any country gave to the rest of the world an example of national honour and of patriotic heroism that country was Belgium. In Belgium there are two official languages. When Belgium fought the invading Germans did the fact that she had two official languages prevent her soldiers from giving an example to the rest of the world which will never be forgotten? I think if Canada can do as well as Belgium in so far as nat-

ional unity is concerned we can rest well satisfied.
As I said before, we are asking, not for privileges or for favours, but for rights. But, even though we were asking for favours or privileges, I think hon. gentlemen on the other side ought to be more generous than the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) seems to be. The French language is not a barbarian tongue. The fact that proclamations were printed in French in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick and the other provinces would not have a tendency to adversely affect the education of our population. Every man in Canada, if he wishes to be completely educated, ought, like the English people who are highly and completely educated to know both languages. In England no gentleman claims to be completely educated unless he speaks French. And every hon. member knows that most of the difficulties at the Peace Conferene arose from the fact that Mr. Wilson did not understand French.
The time has gone by when we should continue to fight over this language question. We have two races speaking two different languages. Let us admit the fact and let us legislate so as to meet the needs of these two races. Let us have laws that will promote the welfare of our people, and let us forget the past fights over these language and racial questions. The language which was good enough to serve Marshal Foch in the war to give the final orders which meant the victory of the Allies is good enough for any part of this country. I say that a language which is used on every official escutcheon of Canada or of England to show the national motto, Dieu et mon Droit, is good enough for every Canadian. Would the hon. member for Frontenac pretend that we ought to translate Dieu et mon Droit into English, or Honi soit qui mal y pense?
I think that the amendment as presented by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) is fair and ought to carry, for it would be a good piece .of legislation-legislation of a character to appease the agitation that now exists in certain sections of this Dominion.
Mr. EDW'ARDS: Mr. Chairman, I crave the indulgence of the House to make one statement as a matter of record since the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cannon) and I very distinctly differ on one point. I make this statement, and I am prepared to submit to the humiliation of being shown I am wrong-if I am wrong,

-that in the terms of capitulation after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham; in the terms of capitulation one year later after the fall of Montreal; in the Peace of Paris of 1763; in the Quebec Act of 1774; in the Constitutional Act of 1791 there is not one single word in regard to language or language rights. Ample and generous provisions were made in some of those documents for safeguarding the interests of the Roman Catholic religion, but I repeat that not one word is to be found in any of those documents relative to language rights. I wish to add this further statement, that in the Act of Union of 1840, not only was there no mention of the French language or of the rights of that language, but that Act made distinct and specific provision that the records of the House should be printed in the English language, and the English language only; and that custom prevailed till several years after the Act of Union was passed.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask the hon. member from Frontenac:	Does he think my
offer is a fair one? Since we cannot agree on the interpretation of that section, let, us strike out the words in section 37 as I have suggested, and if the proclamation is published in English only, then we have a grievance, which we will bring before the courts, and the courts will give us an interpretation of the British North America Act.


William Cameron Edwards: It is not necessary to
adopt the hon. member's suggestion. I maintain that the clause as it is now and as it has existed for the last thirty or forty years is satisfactory to me, and I see no reason to change it. I do not believe it is in the. best interests of the country to change it. If the hon. gentleman has a constitutional grievance, he has a constitutional remedy for the redress of that grievance.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that the clause as drafted is satisfactory to the hon. gentleman from Frontenac. As was so eloquently put by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) there are two classes of people and two schools of thought in this House and in Canada-one broad-minded and the other narrow-minded. The minister said that some influence had been brought to bear upon him, and of such a nature that he was not able to bring about this amendment which would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to publish the proclamations in both languages. He did not say what this influence was. The hon. member for St. James-


Hugh Guthrie: Is my hon. friend referring to remarks of mine when he says that some influence was brought to bear upon me?


Thomas Vien: I understand from what the member for St. James said that pressure was brought to bear upon the minister by some people who had prejudices against the French language, or some words to that effect.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say so, and I said nothing to that effect.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I offer an explanation, Mr. Chairman? What I said was this: The other day the minister sympathized with our proposal; he said he had some sympathy with it and would take it into consideration. This afternoon when he came back he had nothing to offer, but he said: I am not prejudiced on this point, but other people are; therefore I am not disposed to amend the clause.


Thomas Vien: I accept with pleasure the correction of the hon. member for St. James, but I think that it is to the same effect, if not technically in the same words. Now, Sir, the minister did not take the House into his confidence. He did not tell us who were the gentlemen in this House who were prejudiced against the use of the French language.


Hugh Guthrie: Now, Mr. Chairman, I must rise again. I never said that any members of this House were prejudiced. I distinctly deny it.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) said, if I take the words from my hon. friend (Mr. Rinfret)-


Hugh Guthrie: I rise to another point of order.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order. I must point out to the hon. member (Mr. Vien) that under our rules he is obliged to accept the statement of the minister, not that of any other hon. member.


Thomas Vien: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman. If he did not say that other people were prejudiced, he said that he was not himself prejudiced, but notwithstanding that fact he could not stand by the amendment that he was so inclined to accept the other night. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if not expressly, at least impliedly, he admitted that some other people were so prejudiced against the French language that he could not see his way clear



to have such an amendment accepted by his followers.


William Cameron Edwards: He never said that he was inclined to accept the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I had better read the exact language that I used; I have it here from Hansard.


Thomas Vien: That will make it clearer.


Hugh Guthrie: You will see that I made no reference to any member of this House. I quote:
I	am in no way prejudiced against the extension of the proclamation in the French language, hut I know other people are. I know there are people who look upon the matter as a matter of constitutional right.
That is exactly the language I used.


Joseph Archambault: To whom was the minister referring?


Hugh Guthrie: To a large body of people in this country who think they have constitutional rights, just as my hon. friend thinks he has.
Mr. ARC'HAMBAULT: Was the minister not referring to some of the members?


Hugh Guthrie: No, most distinctly not.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I ask the minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: I most distinctly say that I charged no hon. member of this House with prejudice.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I ask the minister whether these people that he mentions are represented in the House?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot say whether
they are or are not represented in the House. But I charged no member of this House with being prejudiced. I think I am entitled to have my language
II	p.m. taken as I used it. I most
certainly object to the statement made by my hon. friend that I was brought under some influence. It is a miserable statement to make about any man.
Mr. VIiEN: Will the minister let me have the exact words that he used? He states that the statement that I have made is a miserable one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Vien: Hon. gentlemen say "hear,
hear." The committee will compare what I have said with the satement made by the minister:
Personally this is not a matter which appeals to me very strongly 1 am in no way prejudiced-

against the extension of the proclamation in the French language, hut I know other people are.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are the "other
people"?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Thomas Vien: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very anxious to know who these other gentlemen are. So are we. So were we, rather,-


Joseph Archambault: We are not; we
know.


Thomas Vien: -because we know now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read on.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We have found out.


Thomas Vien: The minister says further:
I know there are people who look upon the matter as a matter of constitutional right. Con. sequently the law that has been efficient and satisfactory during the past thirty or forty years should not be interfered with.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Vien: Hon. gentlemen give applause.


Air. CASGRAIN:: We know who they aie.


Thomas Vien: We know who they are. More than that, we do not find in that which I have read, Sir, any correction or contradiction of the statement that I made a minute ago. And if somebody made a miserable-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: If somebody made a miserable statement, it was not I in stating, as I did, that the hon. gentleman said that there was somebody who was prejudiced.


Hugh Guthrie: Now, Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is persisting in making his statement over again and in justifying language which he was ordered to withdraw. What I object to in his statement is that he charged me with having said that members of this House were prejudiced. I denied that. He said also that I had been brought under some influence in regard to this matter, and I denied that.


Thomas Vien: The hon. minister said that he did not say that somebody was prejudiced. I say that from his own words-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: He had better be honest about it.


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister has just declared for the third time that he denies



192C

[Stage Direction]
absolutely having said that any hon. member of this House was prejudiced against the publication of the proclamation in the French language. That statement the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) must accept.
Thomas Vien: I accept the declaration ol
the hon. gentleman so far as members of this House are concerned.


Hugh Guthrie: That is all I object to.


Thomas Vien: But I contend that so far
as the rest of my statement is concerned the declaration of the minister is no correction or contradiction of my statement. I take his very words and I say you can draw from them no other inference than that somebody is prejudiced against the use of the French language in this country. But, Sir, this is no surprise to us.
This is not the first time that we have heard in this House and outside of it of gentlemen endeavouring to restrict the use of the French language as it has hitherto been in use. We have had, in many instances, outspoken declarations from hon. gentlemen opposite as well as from people in various parts of this country, endeavouring to liken the French-Canadian group to some kind of Indian, the Six Nations, or the Hurons, or the Crees of the western provinces.


John Hampden Burnham: That is not correct.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) says that is not correct.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No, the hon. member
for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). The hon. gentleman is a little narrow tonight.


Thomas Vien: _ In many sections of this country there are schools of thought which hold that the use of the French language should not only not be extended, but should be restricted, and that the rights which have been enjoyed by the French-Canadian population should be taken away from them, or at least that those rights should be confined to the province of Quebec, just as reserves are set aside for the Indian tribes of this country. Some hon. gentlemen contend that what I say is not true; that no members of this House are opposed to the exercise of those rights; that no section of this country has a tendency to restrict the rights which have * been enjoyed by the French-Canadian population hitherto. We have seen some of those hon.
gentlemen, the very hon. gentlemen who tried to restrict such use, declare themselves to be the defenders of the French-Canadian students who could not get a sufficient education. May I be permitted to cite, for instance, a declaration by the hon. member for Toronto West (Mr. Hoc-ken), as cited in the Citizen of the 6th March? The hon. gentleman said:
We are fighting the battles of the French-Canadian boy and girl.
The hon. member at that time was fighting the battles of the French-Canadian boy and girl. What did this hon. gentleman say under his signature in a document which has been, to his knowledge or not, widely circulated?-a document which is headed: "(Strictly confidential.) To be referred to or read only within the tiled doors of lodge, chapter or precep-tory. Report of the Joint Legislation Com mittee of the Orange Order." This is signed by two members of the House, amongst others and it deals with the very question now under consideration, the use of the French language in the various provinces. The document reads:
Acting in hearty co-operation, as we always do, our own order, through its M.W. Grand Master, Dr. Ellis, and the Royal Black Knights, through their Grand Master, Bro. A. A. Gray, issued an appeal to both memberships to use every legitimate means to secure the support of the members of' Parliament in every constituency for the Military Service Act and the War-time Elections Act. We must see to it that the safeguards of this Election Act are not thrown away when the war is over.
We are urging the Government to see to it that people who, by reason of peace treaties at the close of the war may be entitled to come here from alien countries, should not be enfranchised at all, until they can read and write in the English language and until they sign a document agreeing to obey our laws, learn the English language, have it efficiently taught in their schools, and to forfeit all their property and civil rights and be liable to deportation on conviction of failure in these matters.
Further on the document says:
We have, at the request of our Prince Edward Island brethren, secured the legal opinion of two eminent lawyers on the question of the right to use French in the schools of that province. We believe the opinion will greatly help out Island brethren in their fight against French aggression.
It has become quite apparent that the school situation in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta must be thoroughly investigated, and our brethren in each of these provinces, assisted by legal advice, organization and investigation, so that effective steps may be taken to put an end to Rome's tactics in using French in schools wherever she can.
No doubt you have all read how at the Saskatchewan School Trustees' Convention the tac-

tics of Rome to secure separate schools, bilingual teaching, and other special favours, was triumphantly defeated by the union of the Orangemen, the Sons of England and other loyalists.
This document is absolutely the exposition of the policies of the Orange Order *as regards the use of the French language. It says further:
We have notified the Government that the 446 French signs on p&st offices outside of Quebec, and the 859 bilingual post office signs, also outside of Quebec, must all be removed, as we believe such signs, with any other language on them,-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must call
my hon. friend to order on two grounds. The first ground is that the document which he is now reading to the committee is not strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. If I were wrong in that, however, there is a rule which prohibits absolutely the reading of any lengthy document twice during the same session. The House has already been favoured with a complete reading of the document which ithe hon. member holds in his hand. It will be found complete in Hansard at page 262 (unrevised edition.) I shall, therefore, have to ask the hon. member to desist from repeating it.


George Boyce: Let him read it.


Thomas Vien: I will abide by your ruling, Sir, but if this document was read during this session, I will make use of it to illustrate the fact that there is a class of gentlemen in this country, and there are some hon. members in this House, who believe that the use of the French language should be restricted. In answer to the hon. member for West Peterborough, who said it was * not true that the French Canadians were considered as Indians in some parts of this country, and that the province of Quebec was not looked upon as a reserve for them, let me quote from this document with which the committee is cognizant, these words:
Permit us to remark here that every French Canadian who comes to Ontario to take the place of the " White Men "-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member
should not attempt to defy the Chair. He should submit to it or appeal from the ruling.


Thomas Vien: I do not intend either to defy the Chair or to appeal from the ruling, but I think I am. quite within the rules of the House in citing in support of my contention a line or two from a document which 
has been read. The line which I intended to cite-


Georges Henri Boivin: I asked the hon. member to desist from repeating what has already been discussed in the House during a previous debate of the same session, and I must insist upon that ruling.


Thomas Vien: Is it the ruling of the Chair that I cannot quote from this document for the purpose of supporting -my argument?


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling of the Chair is that the hon. member cannot refer to anything said or done in a previous de-; bate during the same session; a rule necessary to economize the time of the committee and a restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate when already concluded.


Thomas Vien: I shall abide by your ruling, Sir, but I might refer hon. gentlemen to the document to establish the fact that French Canadians were accused of taking the place of white men in Ontario and it was declared they should be sent hack to Quebec. If we take the place of white men, that implies that we are not white men, and if we are not white men, we are Indians. That is the argument that I wanted to make on this point-that some gentlemen not only wish to restrict the use of the French language, but to assimilate us to the Indians in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Vien: Does not this document say that we have taken the place of white men in Ontario and that we should be sent back to Quebec?


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I rise to a point of
order. The hon. member's remarks are not relevant to the clause under discussion.


Joseph Archambault: That is a fine speech.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order just raised is that the remarks of the hon. member are not relevant to the clause under discussion. I have already drawn the attention of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) to that point. I understand that he has accepted the ruling and is coming back to the subject under discussion.


Thomas Vien: I made the statement that the French Canadians were in some sections of this country assimilated to Indians, and I referred to the document which you, Sir, prevented me from reading. If I cannot read it I can at all events refer hon. gentlemen opposite to that document in which they will find that the French Canadians

are accused of taking the place of white men in Ontario, and it says that we should be sent back to our Indian reserve, that is to say, the province of Quebec.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it not true also that in certain sections of the country some English Canadians were referred to as worse than Huns? I do not think either one was taken very seriously, but is it not a fact?


Thomas Vien: If I entered upon the ground on which the hon. member is trying to draw me, I would be called to order by the Chair for irrelevancy.


William Cameron Edwards: I think you would.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member admits that, surely his question must have been irrelevant and out of order?


William Cameron Edwards: Out of order, but not irrelevant.


Thomas Vien: We. are just emerging from a great war, and we are facing almost absolutely new conditions. We are trying in many parts of this country to develop this great Canada of ours to the best of our ability. Who will say that the population of the province of Quebec under 150 years of British rule has not done its share in the development of the natural resources of this country? We had an immense section of this country left to us. We tried to develop it. We tried to imbue our children with respect for law and order, and I think we have been successful in obtaining results. I think there is no section of this country which has done more for the development of Canada than the province of Quebec. It is now for us to decide whether we intend to live in harmony and in co-partnership, on an equal footing with our brothers and co-citizens of the other provinces. The people of the other provinces do not fully understand the mentality and the mind of the French Canadians. If we are willing to work for the development of this country in harmony with our co-citizens of other provinces, at the same time we absolutely refuse to be absorbed or to receive the stamp of any other character than we now possess. We consider that we are true Canadians. If we are true Canadians we should be Canadians not only in the province of Quebec but outside of the province of Quebec. We should not be received in other provinces as foreigners or as chasers of white men. We should be received as partners, and coworkers in the development of this country no matter where we come from, and the rights and privileges which were granted by Confederation should not be restricted, but the constitution should be carried on in spirit and in letter. How can hon. gentlemen from other provinces expect that we shall harmoniously work in sympathy with them when every time any one of our fellow-citizens of French origin goes beyond the limits of the province of Quebec he is treated as an alien, an undesirable, the enemy of the white man and as one who should be sent back to the reserve in the province of Quebec? Every time a group of Canadians of French origin go beyond the limits and boundaries of the province of Quebec and wish to develop the teaching of their maternal tongue, not at the expense of other people but at their own expense, they are restricted by that very narrow-minded class of people to which my hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General was referring when he said that some people in this country were prejudiced against the French language.
We must not be considered an inferior race, because we are not an inferior race. We must not be considered as being here by favouritism, because we are here by right. If others want our co-operation they must cater to our sympathy, they must treat us as we treat others,-they must apply to us the same methods that we use towards the English-speaking minority of the province of Quebec. We are ready to co-operate to make of this Canada of ours a great and prosperous country, but it seems to me that it is not the true patriotic spirit which inspires hon. gentlemen when they attempt to prevent 150,000 French-Canadians in the Maritime Provinces from having the proclamations under this Act published in their own maternal tongue. What would be the objection, what harm could be done, by publishing them in French and English? None. Only this system of restriction, this spirit of antagonism to the French language could inspire the refusal from the treasury benches to accept the amendment, Those who inspire such restrictions are not the best of Canadians.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have heard the hon. gentleman state several times that some one has referred to the French Canadians as being Indians who should be sent back to the reserve, but I did catch the authority that the hon. gentleman had for making that statement. Who said it? When? And where?


Thomas Vien: The chairman of this committee prevented me from reading the document. I will refer the hon. gentleman for my authority to a document already on

record in this House and which was put on Hansard at the very opening of this session.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What were the words,
please?


Thomas Vien: The words were that French Canadians who went to Ontario to take the places of the white men should be sent back to the province of Quebec. I said that these words, that French Canadians had taken the places of white men, impliedly meant that the French Canadians who went to Ontario were not white men and that consequently, if they were not white men, they were Indians.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is your inference.


Thomas Vien: I admit, that was an inference.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They might have been of some other colour than that of Indians.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman may
draw his inference for himself, but I think that common sense and the meaning of plain English will show that a native of this country who is not a white man is a red man and is an Indian by birth. I do not think there is any other imputation that could be made or any other inference that could be drawn from this statement. I consequently say, Sir, that to my mind the minister should accept one or other of the remedies which were proposed to him. I fail to see how any serious objection can be raised to the use of the French language in the proclamations that are going to be issued under this Act except those which might be urged by that narrow-minded view which inspires some sections of this country and the adoption of which sufely will not be beneficial to Canada. Therefore I think the minister should accept one or other of these amendments.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I hope to be able to make a few remarks without you, Mr. Chairman, being under the necessity of calling me to order. I had no intention of speaking to the question, and I would not have done so but for the reference of the last speaker (Mr. Vien) to myself and his remarkable straining and effort to read into the reasonable opposition to the unlimited extension of the French language over Canada a hatred of the French race. I want to say to my hon. friend that there has never been any effort made in this House, from Confederation until the present day, by any person, to restrict the use of the French language to any narrower bounds than those which were set forth, by the Constitution of
TMr. V'en ]
this country. I submit that if my hon. friend and those who sit with him have any desire to promote harmony they will be willing to observe the Constitution in that regard. If they had any larger rights than those which they possess there would be no objection from any province in Canada to going to the full limit that was permitted to them under the Constitution. There is no hatred of the French language, and there is no hatred of the French race. On the contrary, we of the province of Ontario have the very kindliest feelings for the French, but we say that their leaders, one of whom we have listened to to-night, are in the habit of doing-what the hon. gentleman has been doing for the last half hour-their very best to provoke discord between the two races. He has strained and stretched every argument that he could imagine or think of, even charging us with calling the French people Indians, something I never heard of in my life, something I have absolutely no sympathy with and something that I would have resented if I had heard it; but he would put such a phrase as that into the mouths of the people of Ontario. Why? Surely not for the purpose of promoting harmony in this country. If that is his idea of harmony I must say that his education has been seriously neglected on that point.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman tel! me what meaning he put upon that phrase which he signed to the effect that French Canadians who took the places of white men in Ontario should be sent back to Quebec?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I dealt with that when
it was introduced into this House and I do not propose to deal with it again. But I want to repeat my statement that I have no sympathy with any such suggestions as he made in this House, that French Canadians should be regarded-


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No. He seems to object that we should have any regard for the young boys and girls of French Canada. If we have anything that we think is better than they have why should we not give it to them? Why should we not desire above everything else that in Quebec and in every other province of Canada a high type of civilization should prevail and if we have something that is better than what they have why should we not offer it to them?
We have contended at times, Mr, Chairman, that the educational system of Quebec is not such as the French boys and

girls should have, that it did not fit them, or rather fit the masses of the people for the higher employments of life. Now if we .were antagonistic, and had any feeling of hatred to the French race we would not take any action at all; we would let the French race be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. But we take the ground that this can never be a great and powerful country unless education is widely diffused, and that every boy and girl-no matter where they are or what language they apeak-shall have a complete education that will fit them to take high places in this country. If my hon. friend objects to that, then I submit he is objecting to the very kindliest instincts that to-day are entertained with regard to his race. It is not, as my hon. friend suggests, that we object to French Canadians coming into the province of Ontario; but it is that we object to them corning in and bringing certain peculiar customs that, among the provinces of Canada, prevail only in the province of Quebec, and seeking to establish in those other provinces institutions that are foreign to the temper of the people, and-I want to say to him-institutions that they will resist as long as they have any power to do ,so. The province of Quebec is large enough, Mr. Chairman, to comfortably contain three or four times the population that it accommodates to-day. If my hon. Ifriend desires for his people that they shall carry their customs with them wherever they go, then I say the only way to do that is for them to fill up the unsettled areas of their own province. 'Then they can live under their parish system, then they can enjoy all these peculiar laws which seem to please them, and there will be no word of protest uttered from any quarter whatever. No man has ever proposed that the people of the other provinces should go down into Quebec and alter the laws of that province -the educational law' or any other. There has never been any attack made upon the province of Quebec since Confederation; it has always been in the other direction; there has been one constant agitation in this country for fifty years to get additional privileges for the French language, and for the establishment of these customs to which we object.
Now my hon, friend wants these proclamations printed all over Canada in French as well as in English. Let me point out a most serious objection to that which I have not yet heard mentioned. In every western province there is to-day the very
strongest sentiment against bilingualism whether it has reference to Polish, German, Austrian or French. The people of Western Canada want to speak one language from the Great Lakes to the Pacific ocean. They have made great headway in teaching the Polish, the Euthenian, and the children of other nationalities, the English language which is the language of this country, especially of that part of Canada. Now let it be said, Sir, by federal enactment, that there is another language than English which has a special provilege or a special standing in this country, and you strengthen and encourage all the racial agitations that have been carried on in the western provinces foi the last fifteen or twenty years, and you nullify the effects of the splendid work that has been done by the Government of Hon. T. C. Norris in Manitoba, where they have established a system of schools by which every child- whether Austrian, German, or any other nationality learns the English language and upon attaining the age of twelve can go out into the market place and do business in the language of this country. I want to tell the hon. gentleman the moment he introduces another language into Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia he only gives encouragement to that multitude of foreigners of various languages to carry on their agitation. They will say:, "Aha, there is another language that is recognized. All we have to do is to keep fighting and we will get that privilege for ourselves." The most natural thing in the world, Mr. Chairman, for them to say. And, instead of promoting harmony in the West, it would set up a state of discord that would be very difficult to allay or remove. That, in my judgment, is one of the cardinal reasons for objecting to the use of the French or any other language than English in these proclamations. Not only that, but go down into the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There, in spite of the law, French schools are being operated; the law is openly defied by the operation of bilingual schools. A very large part of the population object to that, but this kind of a proclamation would only give those schools additional standing.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that a clause in the Franchise Act that was good enough for Sir Wilfrid Laurier ought to be good enough for my hon. friends opposite. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not put the French language on an equality with the English language in the election proclamations. Why did he not do that? There are only

two reasons that I can think of: One was he knew it would be an unconstitutional act, and the other was that he feared, or hesitated, to antagonize that sentiment which would be offended by the spreading of French proclamations all over the province of Ontario. But my hon. friends opposite want that done, knowing full well that this Government could not do any one thing that would so incense the people of the province of Ontario against them as to spread French proclamations all over that province.


Thomas Vien: Why would they be
incensed?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: For this reason:	We
know in the province of Ontario that for fifty years the French leaders have been trying to get exactly what they are trying to get here to-night-further official recognition for their language beyond the limits of the constitution,-and the people of the provinces outside of Quebec will not have that if they can prevent- it. They want the French language to stand where it is under the British North America Act. They will not endeavour to curtail it any more than it is curtailed by that Act, but they say they are not going to permit if they can prevent it, any further extensions in the other provinces. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not prepared to face the probable loss of votes that would certainly have taken place in Ontario if he had spread French proclamations over the country. It was either that, Sir, or because he knew that to do so would be absolutely unconstitutional.
It is quite true, as my hon. friends opposite say, that we have two races in this country, which races they tell us must live together. If that is so, Mr. Chairman, it can only be by each respecting the rights of the other. Neither can deprive the other of any rights that they have under the constitution; and when one race gets special privileges that infringes upon the rights of the other race, then I say they are taking sure and certain steps to create discord in this Dominion. There is a way that my hon. friends can promote harmony in this country: It is by standing upon those guarantees for their language, for their customs, and for the protection of their religion-for everything that, they have in Quebec-standing right where they were put in 1867. I want to tell my hon. friends that Confederation could never have been formed unless the leaders in the province of Quebec had consented to the terms that are embodied

in the Confederation Act to-day. The representatives from the other parts of this country would not have conceded anything more than they did concede,-and he knows that as well as I do. It was not Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Cartier who together brought about Confederation : the late George Brown and other men had something to do with it, and they exercised their influence, which influence was all exerted to restrict the use of the French language to where it is to-day; and where it is to-day, Mr. Chairman, is where it ought to stay-it is where it must stay unless my hon. friends opposite intend to cause more serious disruption in this country.
They talk about us people in Ontario being prejudiced against the French language. I resent that statement; we have no prejudice against the French language. But I do not think we need more than the exhibition we have had to-night to prove, Sir, that there is a very distinct prejudice on the other side in favour of the French language. Its supporters are trying to push it in where it has no right to be. They are trying, as did the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), to strain language to prove that this election proclamation is a "record" of the House. A more absurd argument I think I never heard. An election proclamation is a record of an election, but it is not a record of this House, and could not be construed in that way. But it is that everlasting straining of every point that comes up, to force further language concessions, that creates all the difficulty between the two races. I appeal to my hon. friends to accept the Act of Confederation as it stands. Let them be as loyal to it as we are in Ontario, and there will be no trouble between these two provinces.
The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) made a proposition that we should leave out all mention of languages so that he could have a grievance. Why is he looking for a grievance? No one over here has been asking for a grievance-something to be done that would give us a chance to go to the courts. I think that we on this side of the House have shown an entirely different spirit. Besides, if my hon. friend wants to go to the courts, and if, as he argues, an election proclamation is a record of this House, then he can go to the courts and have it so declared; and having it so declared he will get what he wants. The way is open for him to take some particular action to get what he wants

under circumstances that would be more profitable to him and some of his friends in their election contests.
Someone said that a great many women could not read the English language although their husbands could. Well, their husbands can tell them what is in the proclamation. And if those women are living in an English-speaking province they ought to learn to speak English, it ought to be part of their education, if they are ever to be in a position to deal with the people of the province in which they live. I know very well that if I were living in the province of Quebec I would learn to speak the French language. I know that any of my friends who go down to Quebec for any length of time soon learn French, for they must be able to speak and write it in order to do business. Those who come to our province ought to learn our language, and it is no excuse to say that they cannot learn it, and that therefore they must have proclamations of this kind printed in their mother tongue.
I submit that not a single argument has been advanced to-night as to why this clause should not stand exactly as it is. Ii anything, the use of the French language should be prohibited in Manitoba. We have not argued that; we might have done so. I submit that point to prove that we are not looking for a grievance, we are not looking for a quarrel; all the grievances have been sought on the other side, and all the quarrels are being started there. Then isome over-zealous gentleman will stand up and declaim against us for making inroads upon their rights because we are merely refusing to grant them privileges beyond those which their leaders in the most solemn manner fixed in the constitution. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the clause should' carry.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My only regret is, Mr. Chairman, that on this vexed question of language one should have to rely upon treaties or statutory enactments in order to give the minority what it claims is but a natural right. The committee will understand that a minority is always jealous, as might be expected, of the rights it em joys. And when one listens to such arguments as that which we have just been privileged to hear, it is quite natural that the minority would feel somewhat nervous and anxious if it were left to the tender mercies of thehon. gentleman (Mr. Hocken). Why, my hon. friend has just exhibited the spirit which animates him in this discussion by stating very coolly that the section should remain as it is, but that if it were amended he might only amend it in such a way as to eliminate the Manitoba law.
My hon. friend says: But the section has been on the statute books for thirty years and has never been challenged; therefore you should be satisfied with it. Sir, I have yet to learn that there is any statute of Limitations against a natural right-because I am not advocating at the present moment a statutory enactment, nor am I advocating rights which one would enjoy by virtue of a treaty. I know ljy experience what I can expect from certain people when my treaty rights are at stake.
My hon. friend, lording it over us with a superior air, has condescended to lecture the minority. He has compared the respective educational systems of the great province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. I shall not, Mr. Chairman, attempt to answer the arguments of the hon. gentleman, for I know it would be a hopeless task to convince him that at least-at least we are not his inferiors, that at least we should be on a footing of equality.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Quite right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall not for one moment argue that my fellowmen are better than the hon. gentleman's electors; or that the province of Quebec has any educational system superior to that in vogue in the province of Ontario. But would my hon. friend accept the testimony, not of a French Canadian, nor of a Roman Catholic, but the statement of a sturdy Scotch Canadian- and Presbyterian, T suppose? I refer to Sir Andrew MacPhail.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Am I right in saying
that he is a good Scotch Canadian?


Andrew Ross McMaster: You could not speak
and give him higher praise.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not long ago Sir Andrew MacPhail addressed a letter to the London Spectator in answer to such statements as have been made this afternoon-statements made in a letter written by a Mr. Stutfield to the London Spectator. I will quote a few sentences of Sir Andrew MaePhail's letter. Remember, Sir Andrew MacPhail is a Professor of McGill University. He hails from the Maritime Provinces; yes *he is a son of little Prince Edward Island. In answering the slanderous statement made by Mr. Stutfield he said:
The percentage ot school attendance in Quebec is the highest in Canada; crime is the

least prevalent. The allegation that "the "habitant* of Quebec is hopelessly outclassed by Protestant Canadians in trades and professions'' is exactly wrong. Quebec has the most productive farms, the most thrifty and contented workmen, the most successful industries, the most efficient public services in America. Quebec professional men have dominated the Government ever since Confederation by reason of their superior education alone. Within the present month a sum of five million dollars has been raised by voluntary subscriptions for the new French University. By an appeal to the documents all these facts have been verified. The provincial treasurer, himself an English Protestant, will supply them. Of the less specific charges against Quebec I can offer only an opinion, but it is based upon observations extending over a period of thirty years. The people of Quebec-
Will my hon. friend listen to this?
The people of Quebec are most tolerant of all kinds Of education and forms of religion, the least tolerant of fanaticism; they are the best-tempered and the most mannered; the least disposed to interfere with personal liberty; the most stalwart and independent in politics; the most careful in administering justice to rich as well as poor. Quebec is the only place in America which has successfully resisted the emissaries of evil from the labour world of Europe and United States. Quebec is the last refuge in America of good order and political sense. Lastly, the only two churches in Canada which do not "interfere in 'politics'* are the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland.
I shall not delay the committee by commenting upon this opinion expressed by Sir Andrew MacPhail, but it is a good answer to the rather sneering remarks made by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). My hon. friend claims that he is a promoter of harmony in this country. I wish my hon. friend, in seeking to attain his end, would adopt different means. As one who reads the Orange Sentinel from week to week all the year round, I say, Sir, that my hon. friend is one of the most notorious, one of the most dangerous firebrands that this country has ever known. Yet he is all courtesy; he is all fine manners in the (House; he always speaks with a smile on his face. But the moment he dips his pen into the ink bottle, why, the Roman Catholic church, the French-Canadian papulation, the province of Quebec, all ought to be wiped out from the Dominion of Canada. Is he a promoter of harmony and of good will? My hon. friend ought to reside for a few months, perhaps for a few years, in the good old province of Quebec; there he would learn what is tolerance, what is concord, what is harmony. We have no difficulties with our English-speaking friends. My hon. friend has only one objective with his paper, that is, to promote disunion and discord in Canada; in other words, to make of On-
IM Lemieux.]
tario the Ulster of Canada. Why should we import into Canada the troubles, the ills, the miseries and the woes of the Old World? You shall not make an Ireland of Canada. Now, let us come to the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have answered the
arguments of my hon. friend from West Toronto and I think I have been fair with him. The arguments that I have used are not mine; I have quoted from the letter of a fellow-Canadian of a different race and creed from mine.
Now, the amendment which has been proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon; is, I contend, a most reasonable one, and it has been presented in a moderate way. If the committee does not think that it should accept this amendment in its present form, I for one, although I think that it smacks to much of a concession, would be ready to accept, for the sake of harmony, the proviso suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). And the committee should, I think, respond to the noble appeal made in such a moderate way by my hon. friend. Is it possible that in a British legislature any one should question the common sense interpretation of section 133 of the British North America Act? My hon. friend says that the proclamation fixing the day of the election, fixing the place where the polls are to be located, is not a "record;" it is only part of the record of the election. I contend that the spirit of section 133 is that any federal document must be printed in both languages. The language spoken in this House, the language printed in the statute books, in the Canada Gazette, in the journals and in the records of this House, must be French and English alike. Any member elected to this House may be challenged to appear before a committee of the House if it should appear that gross irregularities or frauds have been committed in that election. I have in mind the Elgin election case, and if I delve into past history, I have in mind the Kamouraska election case, where the returning officer, and other officers who had attended to the elections in those particular cases were summoned before the Committee On Privileges and Elections, and there the documents of the elections were filed, the proclamation was filed-


Hugh Guthrie: That surely proves nothing. Any other document may be filed in

this House. Any committee that has power, may call for documents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It proves that they are part of the records of the House, so much so that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is obliged by law to keep under his control during a certain period of time, I forget how long, perhaps a year, or at least six months,-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: One year, two years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -the election records. They are part of the archives, the records, of the House.


Hugh Guthrie: The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery who has hitherto been required to keep these documents was never an officer of this House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he not a federal officer?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, a federal officer of the Crown, not of the House of Commons.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hair-splitting.
Mr. GUTHRIiE: I know this is a legal point, but the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery was always, from the days of Cromwell down to the present, an officer apart from the House; he was the Clerk of the Crown as opposed to the Clerk of the Houses of Parliament. I point this out because technically documents in his custody would not be documents of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who appoints the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?
Mr. GUTHR'IE: The Governor in Council.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is, the Dominion Government appoints the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and if he had to be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, he would have to know one of the two languages.


Hugh Guthrie: My point is only that, strictly speaking, he is not an officer of this House, if my hon. friend is arguing that point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will allow me to say that I take this in argu-,ment as a mere quibble. It is unworthy of the minister and of the traditions of the great party to which he once belonged.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member cannot laugh an argument down in that way. There is the fact, if my hon. friend is going to argue upon the point of custody. That is the fact; let my hon. friend argue on that point. To attempt to laugh down the argument will not affect it in any way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Any document from the Dominion GoveromenU-when I say Dominion Government, I speak of officers appointed by the Dominion Government-must be printed in both languages, the Canada Gazette just as well as any other document.


Avard Longley Davidson: Why, as a minister ot the Crown, did the hon. member not insist on this being done before?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no statute ot limitations against natural rights. If this clause passed unnoticed before my eyes during the last twenty-five years that I have been a member of this House, I plead guilty to that; but is that a reason or an argument why I should not plead that the clause should be amended in order to make it constitutional? The question was never raised before, it is true; but the question being raised to-night, and this being a right, why should I be prevented from advocating the restitution of that right, especially when it is demonstrated that in many constituencies there is a grievance and in many others there is the possibility of a grievance? Would my hon. friend refuse to that minority which is under a grievance the remedy which is at hand by amending this section? Surely my hon. friend has a more tender heart than that. What can he gain by refusing to give back to the minority what has not been claimed during the past twenty-five years? My hon. friend is interested in having a clean election; we are all interested in having the people of this country understand the meaning of the election, the whys and the wherefores of the election. We are only asking Parliament to enlighten the minority which does not understand one language. Oh, but, we are told, foreigners, immigrants who have come to Canada, might just, as well claim the same privilege. That is a very poor argument,-if it be intended as argument. The Galicians, the Germans-who by the way are better treated in Ontario than are the French Canadians-the Austrians, the Russians, were all immigrants who came to this country, knowing full well that their language had here, no special status. They knew the law of the land, and in the immigration leaflets, issued by the Department of Immigration, those immigrants were told that English and French were.the only two official languages of the land. Therefore, when they reached Canada and accepted the bounty of the Government in the form of thousands of acres of land in the western prairies, they knew full well

that their language had no special status. The case is surely different with your fellow-members of French descent.
I said a moment ago that I regret the spirit which rwas evinced this evening on the part of some hon. gentlemen as they approached this question. I know this is a vexed and delicate problem. No one cares to discuss those awkward questions. But, Sir, as I said a moment ago, the minority is always jealous of its rights and of its privileges, and it has reason to be nervous when we hear language such as we have heard this evening. Do you believe, Mr. Chairman, that this country can strive for peace and harmony, and therefore for progress and success from a national point of view, if at every moment the constitutional rights of the minority are challenged as they are being challenged by some members of this House. If that system prevails, you will not succeed in restoring harmony in this country, and God knows it needs harmony and concord. I have been in England, and not very long ago I was asked to speak of Canada from the French-C'anadian point of view by the President of the Empire Parliamentary Association. I said, "I have no mandate. I occupy no official position in my country which justifies your invitation, but if you insist I will accept. I will not distribute flowers and laurels. I will speak the truth." I was answered, "Sir, we expect you to speak the truth, and we are anxious to know the truth about Canada."


Horatio Clarence Hocken: And did you?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, Sir, I spoke the truth; and let me tell my hon. friend I would repeat here what I said in London in the hearing of the Speaker. Speaking in St. Stephen's Hall in London I gave an outline of the treatment which for the last twenty-five years has been meted out to the French-Canadian minority in the province of Ontario and in the province of Manitoba. And, Sir, next morning, to my surprise, I found that the great organ of public opinion in Great Britain, the London Times, approved with one reservation only, every word that I had said, and expressed regret, if not shame, that fellow-members of the British Empire were treated as they were in the province represented by my hon. friend from West Toronto. The press of Great Britain re-echoed the comments of the London Times, and statesmen of all parties, Whigs and Tories, Unionists and Coalitionists, all approved of my language. I can give a list of the guests who were present at that dinner. Mr. Chairman,

when, during that address, I stated, for instance, that just prior to the war the French-Canadian minority in the province of Ontario had been deprived of a privilege enjoyed since time immemorial-a privilege that was maintained in favour of the German minority-I was interrupted by this exclamation, "Is that possible in the province of Ontario?" I said "It is a fact."


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They did not know conditions as well as we know them.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You know too much.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Ignorance, thou art
bliss! I shall at any time of the year and at any hour of the day take the judgment of plain John Bull of England in preference to the judgment of my hon. friend.
My hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General a moment ago questioned my statement as to the status of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Here is what I find in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 188:
The Office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, consisting of three permanent officers and such temporary clerks as may be required from time to time. The clerk of the Crown in chancery is always present at the table of the House of Commons, at the commencement of a new parliament, and hands to the clerk the roll, or return book, which contains the list of members elected to serve in the parliament. In conformity with law he issues writs for elections, makes certificates to the house, in due form, of the return of members, and performs other functions relating to elections. He attends the house with election returns, and amends the same, when so ordered. The various proclamations, summoning, proroguing, and dissolving parliament, are issued by command out of chancery. He is also required to attend in the Senate Chamber at the close of a session, or whenever his Excellency the governor general gives the royal assent to bills, the titles of which it is the duty of this officer to read. Prom the foregoing summary of this officer's duties it will be seen that, while he is appointed by the Crown to perform certain duties by its command in connection with elections, and also to attend in the upper house on the occasion of the exercise of certain royal prerogatives, he is also an officer of the House of Commons. He must obey its orders to lay on the Table election returns In his possession and even alter them at its direction. The office was formerly specially attached to the privy council, but is now directly under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
That disposes of the argument of my hon. friend of a moment ago.
One word more and; I am done. I am too old in public life to raise any racial, sentimental, or religious issue, but I feel too much the dignity of my race to tolerate any slurs against it, especially when I know its history. I know too much of politics to be wedded in any slavish fashion to any party.

I am more of a Canadian than I am a Liberal, although I believe, Mr. Chairman, that being a good Liberal means being a good Canadian. I appeal to my fellow-members as f el 1 o w-C a nadi a n s to stop listening to such arguments as we have heard this evening from my hon. friend from West Toronto, my hon. friend from Fron-tenac, and my hon. friend from North Perth. Will the Government of Canada, if they want to be strong, accept at any little breeze the dictation of a few firebrands? Surely the Government of Canada has more dignity and more moral courage than that! Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from West Toronto expresses the hope that Quebec and the French Canadians and their institutions, educational and otherwise, may improve in the years to come-no doubt by contact with him and the institutions he represents. I believe, Sir, that a great deal can be done by daily contact between the two great races of this Dominion. I believe-and this has always been the ideal of my life; it has been my guiding star-that we have to learn one from the other. We must respect eaich other's virtues, we must respect, as stated this afternoon so wisely by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), even our respective failings and prejudices. But, above all,, we must be Canadians. No one should hope that the minority in this country shall learn it all from the other. Surely that is not a healthy sentiment, and if perchance the hon. member for West Toronto believes that, with his narrow views and bigoted policies, as expressed in his paper, he can dispose of the so-called French-Cana-dian peril, he is completely at sea. Forgetting the intellectual point of view, forgetting the history of the French-iCanadians, forgetting their natural aptitudes to be something and somebody in this Canada of ours, let him remember these essential facts. At the time of the conquest in 1763 there were 65,000 French Canadians in Canada; at the time of the Union in 1640 there were about 500,000; in 1867 at the time of Confederation a little over 1,000,000; Sir, at the next census there will be at least 2,500,000 sturdy Canadians of French descent from one end of the country to the other, and there are over 1,000,000 of the same stock in the United States of America. If it be true that a healthy, law-abiding and God-fearing peoiple can double its numbers every thirty years, I predict to the hon. member for West Toronto and to his compeers in Toronto that in thirty years from
1921 his sons, or his grandsons, will awaken to find that there are 5,000,000 French-Can-adian people. In sixty years his grandsons will find, by the same process off the doubling of population every thirty years, thait there are in Canada 10,000,000 French-iCanadians, faithful to their Church, to their institutions, aye faithful to their language, assuredly because they thrive on persecution. Therefore it is useless, it is in vain, for my hon. friend by his campaign of vilification, to dream of wiping out that old and respectable population of 2,500,000 which, without any capital from abroad, without any aid from the ancient Mother country, relying only on its own courage, its own stability, its own love of the land of its ancestors, has maintained itself and progressed in such a remarkable way.
Sir, I appeal to the common sense, to the spirit of fair play which is in every British breast. I will say, in the words which were heard as a last command from the old captain of the "Titanic," addressing himself to his crew and the passengers as his ship was foundering, "Be British; be British!"


George Boyce: I look upon this as quite a pleasant evening-


An hon. MEMBER:: Or morning.


George Boyce: -Morning. I have got more information than I ever got before. We have heard about this proolamation. I have voted a good many times, I have been all over this province, and I have yet to find the man who lost his vote because the proclamation was not in French. If there was a constituency in which there were French people who could not speak English, you would be very anxious to go there to inform them that there was a proclamation out and that there was going to be an election. You only seek to have this amendment adopted because you are in opposition now and it will be twenty years before you ever get in, and if I got 'my wish it would be a little longer still. You are in opposition because you are against everything no matter whether it is good or bad. You have been that ever since I have been a member of this House. I think we can hardly give praise enough to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) for the way that he started our hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) to speak. That hon. gentleman commenced. with a great deal of wrath directed at the hon. member for West Toronto. He could hardly say anything bad enough about the hon. member. Hon. members find it necessary to

pursue that line of argument because they have not very much else to say on that side [DOT]of the House. I think the hon. member for West Toronto deserves a great deal of credit for telling us exactly where you (Mr. Lemieux) stand and what you are. You said that you were in Britain. I suppose you were in the House of Commons. You said that you were requested to speak, that you did speak and that the public applauded you. You made a great mistake when you did not stay there, because I do not think you will ever be applauded to any great extent in this country. Another thing that I took in a very good-natured way was the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien). He went out of his way a good deal, and I never thought that one man could get down as low as he did. Tliere is only one in this House who could have done what he did in reading documents in regard to the Orange Lodge. There is one thing I would tell you, and that is that the great principle of the Orange Lodge is civil and religious liberty for all men. I want you to take note of that. I would hardly think it worth while to reply to the hon. member (Mr. Yien) because what he said came from so low a source that it is beneath me to pay any attention to it. The hon. gentleman talked in such a way that he could not get any reply to it. I want to tell my hon. friend when he talks about the smallness of the people on this side of the House and the bigotry of a certain class that I am an Orangeman,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: We know it.


George Boyce: -and that the principles of Orangemen are far above those held by my hon. friend. His principles are far to small to even measurably approach those of the members, of the Orange body.


Mr. TOBIN:: How many of them are
there?


George Boyce: I expected to have heard
better things from some hon. gentlemen opposite. There is a little instrument over there that they call a " cannon." I have listened to it with a great deal of pleasure very often but there is no harm in it. It only gives utterance to bombast, and we do not pay any attention to it. What the "cannon" says would not hurt one anyway because it does not amount to very much. But there is one thing I do object to. I had a great deal of respect for my hon. friend over there, but I shall never have

the same respect for him again because he has done his best to create hard feeling in this Canada of ours. As a resident of this country, who knows the French fairly well, I have a very good opinion of them. But for that hon. gentleman to stand up in this House and try to create divisions between the two races is something I never expected him to do. Something has been said about the late Sir John Macdonald. I knew Sir John Macdonald very well, and I used to hear him on the hustings talking about the French. I heard him say that they had a lot of good habits " but," he says, " you cannot trust them."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would not rise at this la'te hour to say even a word or two had it not been for some remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve *(Mr. Lemieux).


Edmund William Tobin: Parlez Francais.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Non, monsieur. The remarks of that hon. gentleman led me to the thought that he has put the proposition on a totally different ground from that on which it was put by all the other members on that side who have spoken. We have been listening to what has been practically a bombardment by many hon. gentlemen opposite based on what they conceive to be the right which exists under the constitution. The hon. gentleman has waived that entirely to one side by claiming that the principle upon which he advocated that the proclamations should be published in French was following what he conceived to be a natural right that was implied, under all the legislation of the past from the Treaty of Paris down. Now in that way the hon. gentleman has really fallen in line with the argument-eited by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)-laid down by Mr. Belcourt, a member I think of the Senate, and a prominent lawyer who has delivered himself at length upon that subject and in no unmistakable way. I only deal with that argument in the hope that it may do some good in the case of the younger members of the House who take issue with constitutional lawyers, men of long experience, and who set up a different construction of the law from what these men of experience adopt. Hon. gentlemen opposite outside of the argument as to the constitutional right have tried to put an interpretation upon section 133 which I do not think the section is capable of bearing. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) particularly, and I think the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon)

and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) and others, have tried to interpret section 133 in their own way so far as regards the words:
-and both languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve followed that argument to some extent; but none of these gentlemen have tried for a moment to put what would be the reasonable meaning upon these words. Now that seems to be the crux of the point and the only argument that is left to hon. gentlemen opposite, because it is conceded here that there is no legal right outside of the limits of section 133, and I think the House is pretty well agreed upon the territorial limits within which that territorial right can be exercised. There only remains then the question of the meaning of these words " Records and Journals of the House." I hold in my hand one of the Journals of this House, the official volume 55 for the year 1919-taken at random-which bears the caption "Journals of- the House of Commons of Canada." That is what is intended to be meant by the words of the section
Journals of the House of Commons of Canada This Journal has been printed since Confederation, and every copy can be found in the custody of the proper official of the House printed in both French and English. That is the Journal of the House of Commons.
Now the other question to be ascertained is what constitutes a " Record." We know what the Journal contains. It contains the minutiae of the daily proceedings of the House, everything that takes place from prayers at the opening right through the sitting, and everything that is tabled, is set forth in the Journals of the House.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend knows
that there are certain things in the form of returns that are tabled and that are not included in the Journals of the House. Does he claim that these do not form part of the records of the House?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is nothing that
is tabled that is not noted in the Journals of the House as having been laid upon the Table.


Jacques Bureau: Even when it is not
printed?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is a complete daily record in the Journals of the House of what takes place in the House.


Jacques Bureau: But they are not printed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They are printed.


Jacques Bureau: Not all-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Absolutely.


Jacques Bureau: Except by order of the House.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Everything is printed
especially when ordered by the House to be printed. When printed they form part of the records of the House, to a certain extent, and are shown in the Journals. The records consist of the sessional papers laid on the Table and these are most important. If ordered to be printed they are to be printed in French and English. The Hansard is also part of the records of the House being a record of everything that takes place viva voce in the Chamber. The stenographic notes are taken and then transcribed in French and English and are published through the medium of Hansard. The Bills are also part of the records of the House. The Bills that are introduced and passed, together with all their retspective changes-from the time of introduction to the final reading; to the stage when they receive their final assent in the Senate-are all noted and form part of the records of the House; and any hon. gentleman, if he desires, can go back to the earliest times-so far as this House is concerned-and in half an hour he can get any original document that is filed as of record in this Parliament from the custodian of those papers. These are the records.
Now the peculiarity is that the original of every Bill that gets the assent is engrossed on parchment in duplicate, one part in French and the other in English, and signed by the Governor in Council or the official acting for him in absentia; these are records also. And if we take the language of the section we shall find that the records and journals of the House are limited to what takes place in this House in the regular parliamentary way under parliamentary practice as detailed in the journals and files of record.
Let us look at the proclamation. The form, as far as the printed bill is concerned, becomes a record because it is in the Bill in draft form with blanks; but the proclamation that is issued by the electoral officer-under the old Act by the returning officer-never was in this Chamber, and under the election law as set forth in this Act never will be in this Chamber unless under souft remarkable and unusual circumstances, in which event it would be

tabled and in the custody of the House. Then it would become a record of the House and would be printed in French and English because it was a record long after the election based on the proclamation had been held.
Let us see how far a little further argument along that line will bring us. Hon. gentlemen opposite argue that because it is ordered by the House therefore it is a record of the House. As I have already shown, it never was in the House, it never had an entity, it never was a paper tabled, it never had any meaning as being in the House in the form published. The returning officer has to keep the results of his election after sending in his return, and the only thing that is of record in the House is the return sent in by that officer of the election or of the return of a member. That is read by the Speaker from the Chair, it is taken down by Hansard, and the return is taken note of for the dally journal of the House. But the returning officer has to keep all the papers-I am speaking in a general way and from mem-ory-for one year, and in the case of a contested election as I read the Act for another year if that year be about expired, or for a year from the time the protest was lodged. I asked the hon. member for Three *Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to-night what would become of those papers then? He replied: Why, he could destroy them if he liked. Is the hon. gentleman serious in suggesting that an official authorized to perform certain functions can of his own will destroy records of this House? No! He destroys them because they never were records of this House and never were intended to be; they are in his custody to do what he likes with after the statutory period has expired.


Jacques Bureau: What about during the statutory period?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: During the statutory
period the returning officer is to keep possession of these papers-that is what the law says. That is long after the election is held, long after the publication of the proclamation, and the operations of the Act have been fulfilled by the publication of the proclamation followed by the election of the returned member. So it is absolutely futile to argue that a mere proclamation is a part of the journals or records of this House.
Let me go a step further. There is a protest, and incidental to the protest, we will assume for the moment, the returning officer was compelled under a subpoena duces

tecem to produce the proclamation to the rota of judges trying the election petition. Being so produced it becomes a part of the records of the court. Since when has it been recognized that the records of Parliament may be handled under a subpoena duces tecem through the medium of a man who is not appointed as an official of this House to take under his control documents of that kind? The returning officer producing that paper, the moment that the trial is over, may by virtue of his right say to the court: The exhibit I filed belongs to me.
I have a statutory duty to keep it for a year. He may make application for the return of the exhibit, which the court may or may not grant according to the circumstances. But assuming he is allowed to take it off the files of the court, he takes that paper back, and probably there may be some reason why in the strict observance of his duties he must keep it a s'till longer time until the statutory period is ended.


Lucien Cannon: May I be permitted a remark? I do not know what the practice of the Ontario Courts is, but before our courts in Quebec never in my experience has the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery parted With the possession of the documents in connection with an election. He produces them before the court, but he keeps them in his possession.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It just makes my argument that much stronger, that neither the court nor any other authority has any right to the papers since there is a statutory obligation upon that man to keep them and, as my hon. friend from Three Rivers says, to destroy them after the statutory period is ended. To argue that they are records of the House is absolutely beside the question.


Mr. JACOBS:: I approach this matter
without any prejudice whatever, inasmuch as I do not belong to the Orange Order, nor yet have I been taken into the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently anything I may say will be entirely free from bias, and as such I think ought to be listened to by the committee with a willing ear.
If I may be permitted to give some advice to the Government, I would suggest that in this matter, .assuming that there is no right whatever with regard to the use of the French language, the Government ought for political and diplomatic reasons to go a little distance with the province of Quebec. The Government is woefully weak in Quebec representation-that is, numerically. Prac-

tically the entire contingent from Quebec has received seats in the Cabinet-or something just as good. I refer to the position which is now being occupied by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames). Nohting was too good for Quebec. Three seats are held by supporters of the Government from Quebec, and these gentlemen were considered so worthy that two of them are now numbered among the advisers of the King and the other gentleman is in Geneva.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Postmaster General?


Samuel William Jacobs: I did not say anything
about the Postmaster General because he is not a member of this House, and I cannot refer to the other House. What I wish to say is that if the Government desires to strengthen its position in Quebec it is certainly not taking the proper course. This by way of a bit of advice to the Government.
The name of Sir John Macdonald was used here to night by the member for Carleton (Mr. Boyce) and I am sorry that he is not in his seat at the present moment. He made the statement that Sir John Macdonald confided to him that " he could not trust the French of Quebec."
Sir John may or may not have made that statement; he is not here to deny it. Perhaps the statement was made such a long time ago that the memory of my hon. friend from Carleton is a little hazy about it. But Sir John Macdonald never had any reason to make a statement of that kind, because he trusted Quebec, and that trust was returned a hundredfold. He held office for many years because he was able to control the province of Quebec, and, at the same time, the Orange Order of Ontario. Now, that was quite a feat. Inasmuch as my hon. friends opposite find that they have practically no representation from Quebec, may I suggest, in spite of the statement made by the member for Carleton, that it would be wise for the Government to see to it that the Quebec representation is strengthened on their side of the House? At present the Government is what I would call a jug-handled government. One-third of the population of this country is not represented on the other side of the House. How is it possible for a government to govern under such conditions,? As a matter of politics I suggest to to the minister that even at the last moment he might very well consider the remarks which were made on this side and go a certain length in order to see to it that 147
these-I will not call them rights; call them privileges if you like-are granted to our friends of the province of Quebec.'
Now, kfter all, what is it that is asked? We say that if it is impossible for the people living in a certain community to understand the language of the proclamation, that proclamation ought to be published in the language which they understand. Is that an unreasonable request? I say it is not. Why, if you buy a bottle of patent medicine you will find that the directions for use are published in about fifteen different languages, whereas in the matter of a proclamation under the Franchise Act, a matter which vitally affects the people, this right to read in a language which they understand is denied to the people.
Efforts have been made during the last year or two to conciliate the province of Quebec in a number of ways. The newspapers of the Government of late, instead of roaring like lions, have been roaring as gently as sucking doves, about Quebec. Now, what is the object? The object is to conciliate Quebec and attempt to obtain some representation without which this Government can not live. We heard about the little excursion which was made down the St. Lawrence by the Prime Minister and one or two of his friends in search' of some new cabinet material. Many of us were on our guard; we were afraid that the hen roost was going to be robbed. Some people thought that the Prime Minister was aiming at no less a person than Sir Lomer Gouin, and other names were mentioned later when it was found that Sir Lomer was not to be attracted by the offers of the Prime Minister. Now, this goes to show that a determined effort is being made to secure representation foT the province of Quebec. Yet when an opportunity is given of in some way conciliating the province of Quebec the Acting Solicitor General refuses pointlblank to take advantage of it. He said that his views were rather in favour of the suggested amendment, but that there were others who were against it. Perhaps I imay be permitted to use the language which has been made current in this House by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) when speaking on another matter he said that it was a case of " passing the buck," whatever that means. The Canada Gazette is published in two languages, English and french. The 'Canada Gazette is not a document of the House or a journal of the House. It circulates from Prince Edward



Island to Vancouver Island. The Acting Solicitor General, I understand, has told us that there is nothing in the law which makes it necessary to publish these things in the two languages; that that has only been done as a matter of convenience,- purely by complaisance. If that is the case, he has a precedent for saying to-day that these proclamations are published as a matter of convenience and in that way giving satisfaction to everyone. Had I my way I would be in favour of publishing that proclamation in every language spoken within the confines of this Dominion. I would publish it in Scandinavian, in German, even in Yiddish; I would publish it in every language known, because after 'all the object of the proclamation is to give the citizens of this 'Country information as to what they are to do and where they are to vote. What is there wrong about that? If it i!s a matter of convenience; if it is essential that we should have reflected in this House the opinion of everyone in this community no matter what language he speaks, why is it that we restrict the publication of the proclamation to the English language and in certain particular places allow its publication also in French? There is no reason in the wide world, for instance, why the county of Glengarry, where nearly fifty per cent of the people are French Canadian, should not have these proclamations published in French. There is no reason why in the counties of Prescott, Russell and others, the proclamations should not be in French as well as in English. No valid reason has been urged by the Acting Solicitor General why this should not be done. Speaking for myself, as I say, without any prejudice whatever, I think that the Government is making a serious mistake, for diplomatic and political reasons if for no higher object, in denying the rights which are asked for by members on this side.


Jacques Bureau: In reply to the member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), I think I can throw some light on the situation if I quote from the French version of the British North America Act, Section 133 says:
(Translation) :
Either the English or the French language may he used by any person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the (Legislature of Quebec, and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records. .	.	.
And this is the point, Mr. Chairman, that I wish to emphasize:
[ Mr. Jacobs. ]
.	.	. And both those languages shall be used
in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what is it that constitutes records? These records- are documents which are intrusted to an officer of the House of Commons, under an Act of Parliament, in order that they become part of the records of this House, so that subsequently they can be used for some purpose. This Bill provides that an officer of this House, appointed under the law, shall keep those documents during a fixed period. If the man is not obliged to keep those papers indefinitely, it is because we allow him, under the 1 aw or implicitly, the privilege to destroy them as soon as the period during which he is bound to preserve them has come to an end. Consequently, the word " used " applies to the papers which are intrusted to an officer of the House of Commons in order that they may be used subsequently for some -purpose. Now, Mr. Chairman, according to the definition which I have given to-day, the English word " records " means all the documents which might subsequently be used as evidence when an election is contested before the courts of justice. You cannot give another interpretation to section 75 of this Bill.
To prevent the accumulation of records in the House and to make their destruction a matter of course, once their usefulness is gone, they are given into the custody of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery during a certain period. I submit that our election documents are not records of the House because of the duration of this custody but because of the fact- itself that they are given into the custody of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery; because of the fact that it is precisely this officer who has charge of them, and because of the fact that the law requires this very thing.
We have appointed an officer who, linden the law, must keep certain documents that have to do with an election. The proof of an election is the proclamation stating that the election is to take place. Without such a -proclamation there can be no proof that an election has been held. The first thing that must be established to the satisfaction of the court, in an election dispute, is the fact that an election has been held, and since this evidence is necessary and must be submitted before the proceedings can continue, the proclamation belongs with the other documents that, according to the interpretation clause just quoted, are styled election documents. I claim that, according to the French version of the constitution, all election documents are

records of the House and must be printed in the two official languages, French and Fnglish. I fail to see how we can possibly escape from the horns of that dilemma and say that, for the purposes of this Act, the records shall not he records, so as to allow of these gentlemen accomplishing whatever objects they may have in view.
Mr, d'ANJOU (Rimouski). (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the committee very long at this late hour, but I cannot let the debate come to a close without saying a few words. After listening with attention to the speeches made in the House, particularly to those of my hon. friends on this side, I have come to the conclusion that the election proclamations which we are discussing are just as much a part of the records of the House as are the Votes and Proceedings, the Debates, etc., and consequently that they should be printed in both the official languages of this country.
The hon. member for 'St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) in the magnificent speech he delivered to the committee introduced a new argument into the discussion, an argument which, it seems to me, deserves consideration. The bon. member from 'St. James, sjeaking of the Naturalization Act of 1919, demonstrated to the House that every alien desirous of becoming naturalized must, besides being otherwise qualified, possess a satisfactory knowledge of either the French or the English tongue.
Now, since to vote at a federal election one must be naturalized and since one of the requisites of naturalization is a knowledge of either the French or English, I cannot understand why the Government of Canada should not publish the election proclamations in both the official languages of this country. The Naturalization Act states that in order to be admitted to citizenship one must have a knowledge of either the English or French language; there is no mention of German, nor of any other foreign tongue. The law thus acknowledges the rights of the French tongue in this country.
I shall give my utmost support to the amendment of the hon. member from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). If I were to offer any word of criticism it would be that his motion is altogether too tame. In so far as I, personally, am concerned, what I am asking the Parliament of Canada for is not a favour, neither is it a privilege; I am demanding the recognition of a right granted our language by the Constitution of this country. I cannot understand why the 147i
Government refuses to accept this motion, so eloquently seconded by all the hon. members on this side of the House who spoke here to-day.
Mr. Chairman, in order to strengthen my argument, I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the following resolution which has been on the Order Paper for some time under the name of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach):
That, in the opinion of this House, all newspapers, pamphlets, advertisements, political campaign literature, and publications of like nature, printed and published in Canada, or distributed or circulated in Canada, in a language other than the English or French language, should not be permitted to be circulated or distributed unless such publications hear, in parallel columns, a translation of the same in the English or French language.
That only goes to show Mr. Chairman, that there is no question in Canada of the German, or any other tongue and that the equality of rights between the French and English languages in this country is not only acknowledged in an official way, but that it is admitted even by those who dis-, pute our right to speak the French tongue. The argument, it seems to me, is not without worth since it shows that those who pretend to ignore it are forced to recognize the fact that, in Canada, French and English are equal before the law.
If the English language were the only official language used in this country, why ,should the hon. member for Edmonton not have mentioned the fact that those printed documents and advertisements should be translated into English only, and why should he not have asked that they be translated into German or into any other language?
Mr. Chairman, this shows that the French language as well as the English language, is here to stay, no matter what may be done against it. I do not intend to retain the attention of the House for any further length of time. I considered it my duty, before the debate was at an end, to say a few words in support of this amendment. Unfortunately, the question had been decided beforehand; it is obvious that the Government has yielded to the Orange pack, and eager as it is to please those gentlemen under any circumstances, it has made up its mind not to grant this request submitted by hon. members in the name of the French speaking population of this country towards securing the recognition of a certain right. It seems to me that to speak French when vindicating this right is an

excellent means of showing that we are entitled to use that language in Canada, in this House and out of it as well, and that the best means of preserving a right is to make use of it. Wherefore I have, spoken in French, to-night, as I usually do, and it was only natural that I should have done so, because I had risen to vindicate the rights of Her Majesty the French tongue.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I did not expect that
the amendment which I moved would have raised such a debate in this House of Commons of Canada. The debate which has taken place this evening has certainly won my admiration, and although once in a while the discussion may have waxed a little strong between a couple of members on either side of the House, I must say that the lesson taught the country by the speeches which have been delivered on both sides will convince the people of Canada, as it has strengthened me in my conviction, of the truth of the principle that a bilingual Parliament can exist only in a bilingual country. If the members of the IHbuse had not felt that we were living in a bilingual country, this House would have adjourned before twelve o'clock. I am confirmed in my conviction, in spite of what has been said by some hon. gentlemen opposite, that seventy-five per cent of the English population of the Dominion are in favour of the amendment which I have moved, and will consider that this is merely an acknowledgement of a right acquired, a privilege which everybody is willing to give to a minority which is willing to accept with such pleasure and gratitude every possible privilege accorded to it. I have been castigated by some hon. members opposite because some years have elapsed and because a similar amendment was not brought in in the election of 1911, or of 1908, or of 1904. The old law, which has been on the statute book for many years, was framed in accordance with the mentality of the people at that time, and no opportune time arose for any member of Parliament, who wished to maintain the prevailing spirit of harmony, to move the amendment which I am moving to-day. Now when the Government is introducing a new franchise law, which will be on the statute book for future elections, which may come in three months or three years, and which law will remain on the statute book for years to come it is an opportune time for any hon. member who desires to have the law amended, to bring in his
IMr. d'Anjou.]	.
amendment. The war is over and we are now engaged on the work of reconstruction, and I think reconstruction in matters of harmony and concord should be the first consideration. As I said before, in the twenty years I have been in Parliament I have never advocated extreme measures. I have, however, always expressed my views, and if at times they may have been stronger than at others my actions have always been dictated by a sense of duty and conviction. There is to-day greater proportion of the French element in the Dominion of Canada than existed thirty or forty years ago, and these people have, according to my conviction, the same rights in the matter of language in matters of Federal concern as the English-speaking people. It has been stated that some English-speaking people in the province of Ontario might be offended to have to read a proclamation in French. I do not see why they should be any more offended at that, than at receiving a postal order, which is invariably printed in both languages;-the only offence they could take would be that it was too small in amount. I do not wish at this time to do anything to create disunion, and I am prepared to withdraw the amendment which I have placed on Hansard and which has been debated to-night. I have listened with great pleasure to one of my old leadrs of the Liberal party, whom it has been my pleasure to follow for years in this House, just as I followed him with pleasure in his past career in the Maritime Provinces, where he had been a figure long before he entered this Parliament in 1896. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, ex-Minister of Finance in the Laurier Government, while not finding fault with my amendment, recognizes, however, that there are tw7o views in this country as to the rights of the French language, and in order not to offend one school of thought he has suggested an amendment which might possibly be more acceptable to hon. gentlemen opposite. He has read his suggestion, and I am willing to withdraw my amendment and substitute for it the suggested amendment of my hon. friend for Shelburne and Queen's.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that the hon. gentlelman have leave to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment withdrawn.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I beg to move to amend clause 37 by adding at the end of subclause (1) the following words:
Provided however that in any electoral district in which, to the knowledge of the returning offi-

cer, there is a considerable number of electors who are familiar with the French language but do not understand the English language, the proclamation shall be issued in both languages.
Amendment negatived; yeas -38, nays 63.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on the same division reversed.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell the House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 12, 1920